Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Motor Vehicles

Mr. Donner: asked the Minister of Supply the number of vehicles, lorries and private cars separately, ordered in 1946 by all the Departments of State, and, separately, in the first six months of 1947.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): In 1946 orders were placed on behalf of Government Departments for 2,870 cars and 1,990 commercial vehicles. For the first six months of 1947 the orders were 872 and 5,642, respectively.

Mr. Donner: Will the Minister investigate the use to which these private cars were put, in view of the fact that the use by officials of cars in such large numbers offends the public, following the cutting-off of the basic petrol ration?

Mr. Strauss: As far as I am aware, these cars are used efficiently and economically. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, I shall be grateful if he will let me know.

Office Accommodation

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Works what inquiries he has made as to the relative office accommodation afforded to civil servants and those employed in private offices; and whether he is satisfied that the utmost use is being

made of Government office accommodation.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): My technical officers are in constant touch with business concerns and they find that standards vary widely, as they do for Government staffs, depending on the type of work done. In present circumstances Government office accommodation will have to be used more economically and arrangements are in hand which should result in a saving of space.

Mr. Shepherd: As there has been a waste of space for some time, can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage reduction in Government accommodation is proposed under this rearrangement?

Mr. Key: I do not think it has been proved that there has been a waste of space for a long time. There have been alterations and decreases in Government staffs, which have meant rearrangements, and a lower standard of accommodation will probably be arranged to meet the need.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is it not the case that much of the accommodation provided by Government Departments is grossly inadequate and out of date, in comparison with that afforded by good types of outside businesses?

Mr. Key: In a number of cases I have inspected recently the accommodation for Government servants has been very inferior to that provided for those in some private businesses.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Government Departments have voluntarily accepted less space to meet the present situation?

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir, and I am thankful for their co-operation.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that large areas of residential accommodation in Regent's Park should be occupied by Government offices?

Mr. Key: I am satisfied that that type of accommodation should be used in preference to other types of accommodation which might be obtained. There is difficulty in finding the necessary accommodation for Government staffs in the London area.

Royal Wedding Procession (Window Views)

Mr. Keenan: asked the Minister of Works if he will give an assurance that no Government Department has allowed windows or other spaces to be hired to view the Royal Wedding Procession.

Mr. Key: To the best of my knowledge no windows or other space in buildings occupied by Government Departments were hired to view the Royal Wedding Procession. I understand, however, that in the case of one building let by a Government Department to a charitable organisation, payments have been made to the charity for facilities for broadcasting and photography.

Mr. Keenan: Is the Minister aware that an article appeared on 16th November in the "People" in which it was stated that £500 was paid to a Government Department for such a purpose? I would like to know whether the Minister will make inquiries, because his answer does not cover that point?

Mr. Key: I have made inquiries and, as I say, no such payment was made to a Government Department. In the case of a building loaned by a Government Department to a charitable organisation, the organisation benefited by the funds which were paid to it for the purpose which I have stated.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Jute Mills (Card Pins)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Supply is he aware that although jute mills are being pressed to increase production for both the home market and export, the allocation of steel indispensable for the manufacture of card pins is being reduced; and when the amount of steel which is essential to enable the Government requests to be carried out will be available.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The difficulty in supplies of card pins does not arise from a reduced allocation of steel, but from the greatly increased demands for wire of all kinds. Further supplies are being made available by diverting more steel to wire production and by imports, and particular attention is being given to meeting the specialised needs of the card pin producers.

Mr. Bossom: Does not the Minister think it utterly ridiculous to push people for greater production for export and not give them the material with which to do it?

Mr. Strauss: We hope that they will get the material with which to carry out their export programme.

Mr. Bossom: We cannot do this work on hopes. We need the material.

Mr. Strauss: There is an all-round shortage of steel, and, particularly, the steel required for this work.

Mr. Erroll: Cannot the Minister get more steel from Belgium for wire-making, as this is believed to be very suitable?

Mr. Strauss: No, Sir, I am afraid not.

C.I.E.M.E., Chislehurst (Piecework)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Supply if he is aware that a piecework system for about 12 mechanics has been introduced into his Department's establishment, C.I.E.M.E., Fox-berry, Perry Street, Chislehurst; that to operate this system a ratefixer has been appointed at £9 10s. a week plus overtime, with a clerical staff of five; what is the total weekly wages bill for this extra staff plus the cost of stationery and office; why it is proposed to appoint an assistant ratefixer; and, in view of the economic crisis, how he justifies these added overhead charges.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: A planned piecework scheme is being introduced into that section of the Chislehurst workshop engaged on the production of various tools and gauges. A technical foreman, whose wages are £9 16s. a week has been appointed in connection with the scheme, which at present covers 21 mechanics—not 12 as stated in the Question. In addition there is one clerk at £6 10s. 6d. a week. The foreman is engaged on planning and progressing duties as well as ratefixing. We do not intend to appoint an assistant ratefixer at present. No special office accommodation has been provided. Stationery and office equipment costs about 10s. a week. Production has already been speeded up since the introduction of the scheme, and substantial economies have resulted.

Sir W. Smithers: The Minister has not answered my Question as to the total cost


Is he aware that there is a great waste of public money, owing to this arrangement, because inspection is costing more than production, and will he give an assurance that all these details will be brought before the Public Accounts Committee?

Mr. Strauss: The Public Accounts Committee can ask for such details as they require.

Atomic Energy Plant, Harwell

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Supply whether the lower-power atomic pile at Harwell is now in operation.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Yes, Sir. This pile came into operation in August last.

Commander Noble: Can the Minister say when the high-power one is expected?

Mr. Strauss: We hope about the middle of next year.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Building Materials (Supplies)

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Works why the Control of Building Materials (No. 1) Order, makes it necessary to obtain a W.B.A. priority licence not only for house-building and other building work inside the U.K., but also for fitting of ships and export.

Mr. Key: There is no obligation to obtain W.B.A. priority certificates, but the Control of Building Materials (No. 1) Order requires manufacturers and merchants to supply all orders which carry W.B.A. priority before non - priority orders. Shipbuilding and exports have, therefore, been included among the uses of building materials eligible for W.B.A. priority, in order that they shall not be subordinated to every priority requirement of the home market.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Is the Minister satisfied that in substance this procedure will mean that shipbuilding and exports are not held up from getting these materials?

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir, and that is the reason why it was done.

Colonel Ropner: Can the Minister give a reply to indicate that he understands the answer which he has given?

Mr. Key: Certainly, and if I can help the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I will try to do so. Shipbuilding and exports get an equal priority with housing in this matter.

Mr. Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Works why no provision is made in Control of Building Materials (No. 1) Order, 1947, such as existed in its predecessor, for emergency supplies of small quantities of controlled materials for essential work such as the repair of broken windows or lavatory pans.

Mr. Key: Article 4 of the Order makes provision for emergency supplies, and the procedure under the Order has recently been simplified so that small quantities of certain goods can now be obtained for emergency use without any formality whatever.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the procedure is something other than what is in the Order, that it has developed out of it?

Mr. Key: It has been developed out of the Order to meet emergency needs in small quantities.

Corrugated Asbestos Sheeting

Mr. York: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware of the continuing decrease in the production of corrugated asbestos sheeting during 1947; and if, in view of the urgent requirements of the agricultural industry for this roofing material he will take steps to increase production.

Mr. Key: No, Sir. There has been no decrease in the production of corrugated asbestos cement sheeting during 1947. Agricultural requirements are given special attention and particulars of any urgent shortages can be given to my regional officers.

Mr. York: Is it not a fact that in 1946 20,000 tons a week were produced, whereas for the quarter July to September, 1947, only 18,000 tons were produced?

Mr. Key: No, Sir, in 1946 the average tonnage was 20,170 a week and up to the end of October last was 20,670 a week.

Ministry Contracts (Masons)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Works how many contracts for which his Department is responsible have been stopped or delayed by the shortage of skilled masons.

Mr. Key: No contracts have been stopped, but the general shortage of these craftsmen has delayed the rate of progress in some cases.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Was the right hon. Gentleman consulted before import licences for nearly half a million pounds worth of marble and stone slabs were granted?

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. This was done deliberately so that apprenticeship schemes could be carried out.

Belgian Bricks (Imports)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Minister of Works what is the quantity and value of Belgian bricks imported during 1946; what is the quantity and value of these imported into this country during 1947 up to the nearest convenient date; and what is the policy with regard to future purchases.

Mr. Key: During 1946 approximately 50 million English size bricks and 8 million Belgian size bricks were imported from Belgium. During the first eight months of 1947 a further 40 million English size and 4½ million Belgian size were imported. The prices of these bricks were 50s. per 1,000 for Belgian sizes, and from 68s. to 70s. 3d. per 1,000 for English sizes, f.o.b. Antwerp. The contracts under which these imports were made were completed in August last, and no further Government contracts are in contemplation.

Sir W. Smithers: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any English bricks were exported to Belgium during this period?

Mr. Key: Not without notice.

Mr. Cooper: Will private builders' merchants be permitted to place contracts for the import of Belgian bricks to this country?

Mr. Key: So far as I am aware there is no restriction on a private merchant importing bricks from Belgium.

Milk Bar, Salford (Licences)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Works when a licence was issued to convert No. 227 Cross Lane, Salford, from a dental surgery to a milk bar and ice cream business, what was the cost of the conversion, and who applied for the licence.

Mr. Key: The only licences in this case were issued by the Salford City Council, at dates when the premises were in use as a milk bar. They were not for purposes of conversion.

Mr. Hardy: In view of the unsatisfactory state of cottage property in Salford, where a protest meeting was held by members of the council, and estate agents and landlords cannot get the necessary materials to make such property fit for habitation, will my right hon. Friend give priority in this matter over milk bars and ice cream merchants?

Mr. Key: These licences, which were for amounts below £100, were issued by the Salford City Council, and they are the responsible housing authority for the district.

Mr. John Lewis: If a recommendation is made by another Government Department does it automatically follow that the Ministry of Works will grant a licence?

Mr. Key: No, Sir, but in this case no such recommendation was made.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: How is it that priority can be obtained for a milk bar, but not for plumbing for an agricultural cottage?

Mr. Key: There was no conversion to a milk bar in this case at all; the milk bar was there before the licence was granted.

Churches (Heating Equipment)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that church authorities are unable to obtain renewals of worn out parts of the heating systems of churches; and if he will authorise a grant of priority therefor as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Key: I am aware that supplies of certain types of heating equipment are at present inadequate to enable demands to


be met promptly. Orders are dealt with in rotation, and I think that is the fairest way of dealing with them.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inability of churches to renew their heating systems is creating great hardship and affecting attendances? Will he do something to enable manufacturers who have heating systems available to supply them for this purpose, instead of exporting them all?

Mr. Key: So far as they are available we shall do all we can to deal with them in rotation.

New House of Commons Chamber (Committee)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Works whether he proposes to set up a committee of Members to advise him on matters arising during the rebuilding and furnishing of the new House of Commons.

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir, I have decided to set up a committee for this purpose. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) and the hon. Members for Rothwell (Mr. T. J. Brooks), Mitcham (Mr. Braddock), the Forest of Dean (Mr. Philips Price), West Willesden (Mr. Viant), East Toxteth (Mr. Buchan-Hepburn) and North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) have consented to serve on it under my chairmanship. The Committee will be informal, and its terms of reference will be to advise me on the interpretation of the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Rebuilding on questions of detail connected with the new Chamber, as they arise.

Sir Ronald Ross: Are questions of taste to be confined entirely to English Members?

Mr. Key: I think I may say that this committee was arranged through the usual channels. I am not therefore responsible for the selection of those with the necessary taste for the job.

Mr. Austin: Will my right hon. Friend see that locker accommodation is improved in the new House of Commons, as the present locker accommodation is hopelessly inadequate?

Mr. W. J. Brown: Does the right hon.. Gentleman notice that, this Committee having been arranged through the usual channels which are not open to Independent

Members, there are no 'Independent Members upon the Committee? Are we to draw from that the assumption that there will be no accommodation for Independent Members?

Mr. Key: No, Sir. I think the conclusion to be drawn is that Independent Members make their wishes known quite satisfactorily under present arrangements.

Hostel, Bifrons Park.

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Works (1) the average number of men housed in the Ministry of Works Hostel at Bifrons Park, near Bridge, and the average monthly delivery of coal to this hostel;
(2) if he is aware that motor coaches are being hired to take residents at the Ministry of Works Hostel at Bifrons Park, near Bridge, on visits to the Kent seaside resorts; that on the night of 1st November, 1947, motor coaches toured the public houses in Bridge to collect residents to transport them back to the hostel, a distance of ¾ mile; and what expenditure of public funds and petrol is involved per month;
(3) the value per week of the meat ration given to residents at the Ministry of Works Hostel at Bifrons Park, near Bridge, and the number of shell eggs per week allocated to each resident.

Mr. Key: These Questions presumably relate to the hostel at which members of my Department's mobile labour force are accommodated. The average number of men accommodated in the hostel since it opened in July is 42; the number now there is 60, and is expected to reach about 200. Sixty-four tons of coal have been delivered to the hostel since 21st July. Members of the mobile labour force accommodated in country districts where no social amenities are available are allowed free transport not more than twice a week to a town within a radius of 20 miles from the camp or hostel. These journeys are made in the Department's vehicles which are used in transporting men daily to sites. On 1st November, only three men asked for the normal amenity run to Ramsgate and the driver in the circumstances took a number of men only so far as Bridge. The total cost of a return journey for the maximum distance is about 34s. including cost of


petrol. The meat ration is on the basis of 4 5/7 d. per head per day as fixed by the Ministry of food for industrial "A" hostels, and there is the normal issue of one shell egg per head per allocation.

Mr. Baker White: While thanking the Minister for that very full answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that deliveries of coal to the hostel over recent months have been greater than the amount of coal allowed for a village of 280 households? Further, is he aware that these men have been given not one, but three shell eggs per week and that the agricultural workers in the district feel great indignation at the free transport being provided and at the men being taken on tours all over East Kent?

Mr. Key: "Tours all over East Kent" is not a true record, as I have indicated. I am not aware that three shell eggs have been given. As I say, the allocation that has been given is one shell egg per period, and as for the coal, it has been necessary to build up the required amount of coal, in view of the greatly increased number of people intended to be accommodated in the hostel in future.

Mr. York: In view of the fact that the coal allocation for the hostel is very much greater than that allowed to the hostels of the Women's Land Army, will the Minister look into the matter again to see why it is that this type of worker is given such preferential treatment over the agricultural worker?

Mr. Key: I am not aware that the facts are as stated. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are."] It does not fall to me to know what is allocated to the Women's Land Army. All I can say is that there has been an anticipation of the user of this hostel for essential mobile workers for reconstruction in the area concerned.

Shop Premises, Bournemouth

Mr. Lever: asked the Minister of Works why he granted licences for a total of £12,584 to Daniel Neal's, Robinson and Cleavers, and the Barbeque Restaurant at Bournemouth having regard to the abundance of existing shop and restaurant accommodation there.

Mr. Key: The work was sponsored in the first two cases by the Board of Trade, and in the latter case by the Ministry

of Food. Most of the expenditure on these three premises was in respect of specialist work not involving general building labour.

Mr. Lever: The Minister has divided the work into two classes, one' being specialist work not involving ordinary labour. Is that not another way of saying "luxury work"? Is not the Minister, by granting these licences, keeping the luxury labour force unduly inflated? What answer has the Minister to make about the completely unjustifiable use of essential materials, such as plumbing material and metal, for shops in places like Bournemouth, and the supply of that material?

Mr. Key: The answer says that the work is of a character not involving general building labour. Therefore, the work was such as did not involve the use of ordinary materials of the character that has been indicated. As to whether the licences should have been granted for particular establishments, I think it is only wise in such matters that I should take the advice of the appropriate Departments—the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Food—and their opinion is given great consideration when we come to the issuing of licences.

Mr. Frank Byers: Is the Minister aware that in the neighbouring constituency of North Dorset these decisions have caused consternation, because there we are told we cannot have the materials to get on with houses required for the accommodation of workers on the land?

Mr. Key: I would like instances of where that is the case. I would also point out that in the general allocating of labour for building purposes we are working on the basis of 60 per cent. of the available labour being used for housing purposes. Allocations for purposes other than housing have to be met out of the remaining 40 per cent.

Royal Exchange, Manchester (Reconstruction)

Mr. Lever: asked the Minister of Works the purposes for which the premises at Royal Exchange, Manchester, in respect of which a licence for £171,300 has been granted are to be used, how much of the sum is in respect of the restoration of shop facilities in the building and which department of the Manchester Corporation, and in what terms, recommended the granting of this licence;


and whether he will consider ordering that the undertaking of this work be postponed.

Mr. Key: The licence in question represents the first stage in the complete reconstruction of the northern half of the Royal Exchange, Manchester, and such accommodation as is made immediately available will be used for shops and storage purposes. Most of the sum involved at this stage is for the general structural work and I could not, without detailed inquiry, estimate how much should reasonably be attributed to shop facilities. There was no formal recommendation by the Manchester Corporation but the application was supported by the Town Clerk. The future of this undertaking is being considered in the light of the change of circumstances since the licence was granted.

Mr. Lever: Is the Minister aware that, far from supporting this application, the Manchester Corporation and, indeed, the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Manchester are outraged that a licence of this kind has been given for the purpose of providing shops and storage accommodation; and that is only the beginning of the whole operation of restoration?

Mr. Key: The necessary medium of communication between my Department and the Manchester Corporation is through their Town Clerk. When their Town Clerk supports an application I take it as a necessary consequence that it has been supported by the Corporation.

Mr. J. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a similar case at Bolton where the local authority objected through its Town Clerk, the Ministry of Works still did not withhold the granting of the licence?

Mr. Key: That is an entirely different question and an entirely different attitude. I cannot in all cases accept that the local authority are the determining factor in the carrying out of any particular building operation. I must reserve to the central Department the power of looking at things from a national and not a local point of view.

Premises, Piccadilly

Mr. Lever: asked the Minister of Works what were the terms of the recommendation by the Ministry of Food upon

which he granted the licence for £4,500 to Messrs. Kenaldo Limited in respect of 96, Piccadilly, W.I, the terms of the recommendation of the Ministry of Fuel and Power upon which a licence of £4,200 was granted in respect of the same premises; what information he had as to the use to which it was intended to put the premises before these licences were granted; how many persons can be accommodated in the premises when used as a restaurant; and what steps were taken to ensure that the expenditure upon the work undertaken was not excessive in relation to the accommodation to be made available.

Mr. Key: The Ministry of Food supported the issue of the licence for £4,500 on the grounds that there was very considerable public need in the area for additional restaurant facilities. The Ministry of Fuel and Power supported the licence for £4,200 on the grounds of fuel efficiency; the work related to the building as a whole and was not confined to the restaurant. When the £4,500 licence was granted last January my information was that the premises would be used as a popular restaurant to seat 450 persons. The work was considered as the minimum necessary to meet requirements.

Mr. Lever: Does the Minister really need the assistance of the Ministry of Food to tell him that there is ample restaurant accommodation available in the Piccadilly area? Is he aware that the present difficulty is for existing restaurants to get food for their customers?

Mr. Key: The Minister requires and needs, as every Minister does, the co-operation of his colleagues in carrying out his functions, and I think it is essential that I should consult the Ministries concerned before making a final decision. Therefore, I did that, and having received their strong recommendation I thought I was only doing the right thing in allowing the licence to go forward.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Output

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Works on the basis of houses completed, how the present output of house building compares with the prewar formula of one house per man per year.

Mr. Key: In view of the scarcity of prewar data and changes in the size and types of houses, it is difficult to draw a direct comparison between the two periods.

Mr. Shepherd: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present rate of output is only 30 per cent. of prewar? Is it not time the Government did something about it?

Mr. Key: I would not agree with that at all. The average size of the house built by local authorities has increased from 650 square feet to 950 square feet, which is approximately a 50 per cent. increase. Instead of being 12 months per man per house it is now 14 months. Improvement and efficiency have been greatly increased.

Mr. Shepherd: If the right hon. Gentleman has all this information why did he not give the comparisons for which I asked him in the Question?

Mr. Key: Because I was asked about a period, and it is difficult to get the necessary statistics for a period.

Mr. Marples: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the report of the committee on the cost of house building and output is published?

Mr. Key: I do not know whether that falls to me or not, but I hope they are aware of the things I have said.

Mr. Marples: They were appointed by the Minister of Health.

Farm Cottages, Annan (Plumbing)

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Minister of Works on what grounds a W.B.A. priority was refused for the plumbing work on four cottages on the farm known as Charlesfield, Annan, which are being reconditioned at the proprietor's expense for the use of farm workers, and are completed except for the plumbing work.

Mr. Key: This was not one of the classes of cases in which the local authority was authorised to grant priority. An application has since been made through the Department of Agriculture and priority has been granted.

Flats, Knightsbridge

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Works what is the value of the licence granted to build the block of flats in Knightsbridge known as Alexander Keep; the number of flats concerned; and why, in view of his policy, this licence was granted.

Mr. Key: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that no licence has been granted.

Mr. Piratin: Is the Minister aware that, on the outside space formerly occupied by these flats is a large notice inviting prospective tenants, no doubt at very substantial rents, to apply for accommodation and stating that the flats will be up in the next year?

Mr. Key: No, Sir, I was not aware of that. All I was asked was whether a licence had been granted. As I have said, no such licence has been granted.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Are not such blocks of flats intended to provide homes for human beings just as much as are prefabricated houses?

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir, and application would be made to the local authority for a licence. The local authority would deal with the application.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Questionnaire

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied that accurate replies are given to question 118 in the normal questionnaire, Fragebogen, in use in Germany where, among other information sought from each individual, is a list of all public addresses made giving subject, date, circulation and audience over the last 24 years.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): I appreciate that all replies to question 118 cannot have been accurate but, in general, they have helped the authorities to decide whether a person was an active Nazi or merely a nominal member of the Party.

Mr. Vane: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that this reduces our administration to nonsense? Could he,


for instance, remember how many speeches he has made over the last 24 months, quite apart from the last 24 years?

Mr. Mayhew: In reply to the last part of the question, I dread to think how many speeches I have made. In reply to the first part of the Question, it is no longer the responsibility of our administration, but is now a matter for the German authorities.

Reparations (Transport)

Mr. Nigel Birch: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements are being made to transport the contents of German factories allotted as-reparations.

Mr. Mayhew: No detailed programme for the movement of this traffic is yet available.

Mr. Birch: Will the Minister bear in mind the great strain under which German transport is suffering, due to inland water transport being impeded by the drought, and will he see that the factories are not moved if it means holding up the production of coal and holding up any measures that might get the German economy going again?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, we admit there is a big problem here, but we are planning to make a detailed and careful programme so as to avoid interference with priority traffic.

Mr. Vane: Has not the hon. Gentleman noticed in Germany the enormous number of goods trains standing idle in sidings loaded with machinery destined for one knows not where?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR (FAMILIES)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the Government's present policy towards German prisoners of war who volunteer to remain in this country beyond their repatriation date and undertake essential employment, and who wish to bring their wives and children to this country to join them.

Mr. Mayhew: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon.

Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on 27th October, and to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour on 30th October. It has, unfortunately, not been found possible to bring the families of these men to this country since accommodation is very short and priority must be given to the families of European voluntary workers.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND (FRONTIERS)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what boundaries were at any time agreed to by any British Government for postwar Poland, and to what extent the Oder and Neisse formed part of these boundaries.

Mr. Mayhew: I presume that my hon. Friend's Question refers to the Western frontiers of Poland. Here the position is that the three Heads of Governments agreed at the Potsdam Conference that, pending the final delimitation of this frontier of Poland at the Peace settlement, the following territories should be under the administration of the Polish State: the former German territories east of a line running from the Baltic Sea immediately west of Swinemunde and thence along the Oder River to the Confluence of the Western Neisse River and along the Western Neisse to the Czechoslovak frontier, including that portion of East Prussia not placed under the administration of the U.S.S.R. in accordance with the understanding reached at Potsdam and including the area of the former Free City of Danzig.

Mr. Reid: Was any document suppressed by Mr. Mikolajczyk?

Mr. Mayhew: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to a letter written by Sir Alexander Cadogan in this context. As has already been stated in this House, that letter forms part of a long diplomatic correspondence leading up to the Potsdam Agreement and was superseded by that Agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROUMANIA (DR. MANIU, INDICTMENT)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the names of His Majesty's representative to Roumania and the hon. Member for Chichester were included in the indictment of Dr. Juliu Maniu by the Roumanian Government; and what steps he is taking to substantiate to the Roumanian Government their innocence of the charges alleged against them.

Mr. Mayhew: The indictment of 19 members of the Roumanian National Peasant Party alleges that Dr. Maniu systematically supplied the United States and British Representatives in Roumania with tendentious and confidential information and mentions two interviews between His Majesty's Minister (then British Political Representative) and Dr. Maniu. It contains nothing in the nature of charges against His Majesty's Minister nor does it attribute to him conduct exceeding his duties as British Political Representative under an Armistice of which His Majesty's Government was one of the three controlling Powers. The hon. Member for Chichester is mentioned once, when the indictment merely states that he was introduced to Dr. Maniu by His Majesty's Political Representative. In the circumstances my right hon. Friend does not propose to take the matter up with the Roumanian Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (BRITISH MILITARY MISSION)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is to be the function of the British Military Com mission in Greece, now that a joint- Greek-American Army Staff is being established; and to what extent there is to be co-operation between the British Military Commission and the American corps of Officers to be attached to the Greek Army.

Mr. Mayhew: These matters are under consideration at the present time.

Mr. Piratin: Now that the Greek Army is taking orders from the United States Government as to how it should conduct its affairs, surely there is no need in Greece for the British Military Mission and

no need to spend any further British funds on that purpose? Can the Minister there fore give an assurance—

Mr. Speaker: That is pure argument and nothing else, and that is out of Order at Question Time.

Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister at this stage give an assurance that the British Military Mission will be withdrawn immediately in view of the fact that its function has ceased?

Mr. Mayhew: I cannot accept all the implications in the hon. Member's previous question, and I have nothing to add to what I have said, that we are considering this matter.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Is the Minister aware that in the present circumstances and in view of the intensification of intervention from over Greece's northern frontiers, the arrival of these officers will be very widely welcomed by Greek democrats? Is he further aware that the atrocities committed in Greece are by no means confined to the Right Wing, and that the only final solution to the continued devastation of Greece is international action to end the civil war?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. I appreciate those sentiments. Further, in fairness it should be stated that not only are the atrocities not confined to the Government side, but that they are far worse and more numerous on the other side.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIANS, SOUTH AFRICA (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the United Kingdom representative on the Political Committee of the United Nations General Assembly did not support the Indian resolution requesting South Africa to enter into a round table conference with India on the treatment of Indians in South Africa.

Mr. Mayhew: This resolution reaffirmed an Assembly resolution of the 8th December, 1946. It requested the Governments of India and the Union of South Africa to enter into discussions, to which the Government of Pakistan was to be invited, on the basis of the 1946 resolution. The United Kingdom Delegation voted against this year's resolution, principally


because it was feared that reaffirmation of the 1946 resolution might hinder the creation of a suitable atmosphere for direct discussions between the parties concerned, which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are most anxious to encourage.
The United Kingdom Delegation voted for another draft resolution recommending, without conditions, that the parties concerned should continue their efforts with a view to reaching an agreement directly settling their dispute and that, should they fail to reach such an agreement, they should submit the dispute to the International Court of Justice.

Mr. Piratin: But if I understood the Minister's reply, is it not the fact that the resolution to which the British representative agreed is precisely the kind of resolution agreed upon in December, 1946, and that what the original Motion at the United Nations organisation asked for was that they should now pursue the original resolution to its conclusion, and all that this resolution—

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must learn how to ask supplementary questions, and not make allegations and imputations in speeches when he is asking them.

Sir T. Moore: Are we to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) has now been appointed as the representative of M. Gromyko in this House?

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORFU CHANNEL CASE (HEARING)

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reasons for the delay in the hearing of the Corfu Channel case by the International Court of Justice.

Mr. Mayhew: The Order of the Court fixing the time limits for the submission of the written pleadings in the Corfu Channel case was made on 31st July, eight days after the Albanian Government had communicated, as required by the Rules of the Court, the name of its agent.

It is the practice in international proceedings of this kind very fully to develop these written pleadings, which are a most important part of the proceedings, both as regards the facts and as regards the law. The preparation of pleadings in such detail inevitably takes a considerable time. In fact, the British Memorial was not submitted until 1st October, and the Albanian Counter-Memorial is due to be filed with the Registrar by 10th December.

Sir R. Ross: Will the Minister do all he can to expedite the trial on this very important issue, involving as it does the murder of British seamen on the high seas?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, we want it to take place as soon as possible, but I think it would be unfair, in view of what I have said, to suggest that there has been undue delay yet.

Major Bruce: Will my hon. Friend consider publishing the full pleadings to which he has referred when the proceedings of the trial itself are published?

Mr. Mayhew: I am not sure of the procedure there; I would like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — B.B.C. EUROPEAN SERVICE

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent and by what methods it is proposed to reduce the activities of the European Service of the B.B.C.

Mr. Mayhew: No final decision has been made on these matters.

Mr. Bartlett: While the matter is under consideration, would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that the European Service of the B.B.C. built up a great reputation for itself during the war, and that it is the only way in which we can present the British point of view "to the European peoples without the expenditure of foreign currency?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, I appreciate that, and we will do all we can to avoid the necessity for making these cuts.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Machinery

Mr. York: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has taken any


steps to aid the Nuffield organisation to start the manufacture of agricultural tractors.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Initial allocations of steel have been made and my Department is being kept informed of the progress of this project. Apart from this and the general support of the Department, I am not aware that any special help is needed.

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether in view of the increased number of tractors now being produced for the home market he will give an assurance that supplies of trailer implements such as ploughs, cultivators and disc harrows will be proportionately increased.

Mr. T. Williams: I understand that production difficulties have been affecting implements rather more seriously than tractors; but manufacturers of both types of machinery are working closely together, with my help and encouragement, with a view to achieving and maintaining an appropriate balance in supplies.

Colonel Ropner: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he believes that he is kept closely informed of the very grave shortage of implements such as these in, for instance, the West Riding of Yorkshire?

Mr. Williams: Yes, I believe we have been fully informed, and that is why special steps were taken to try to secure the right balance between tractors and implements.

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that manufacturers of agricultural machinery are concerned about the supply of malleable castings, ball bearings and chains; and whether, in view of his plan to increase production of agricultural machinery for the home market, he will take steps to ensure that these materials, as well as steel, are supplied in greater quantities for machinery to be used in this country.

Mr. T. Williams: At my request, my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Supply, has been, and is, doing all he can to overcome the difficulties that agricultural machinery manufacturers are meeting in

getting supplies of malleable castings, ball bearings, and precision chain, for all of which the demand exceeds the supply.

Colonel Ropner: Is the Minister satisfied that his right hon. Friend is succeeding in his efforts, and can he give an assurance that the supply position is likely to improve in the near future?

Mr. Williams: I said my right hon. Friend is doing his best to achieve what we desire.

Colonel Ropner: Is the Minister satisfield that his right hon. Friend is succeeding in his efforts?

Mr. Williams: I believe so.

Advisory Service

Mr. York: asked the Minister of Agriculture why the National Agricultural Advisory Service was absent from the London Dairy Show; and at which shows this year the N.A.A.S. has had a stand.

Mr. T. Williams: Owing to considerable commitments at earlier shows and the heavy calls made on the time of a limited staff, I regret that it was not practicable for the N.A.A.S. to participate in this year's Dairy Show. In addition to the Royal, the Royal Welsh, and the Bath and West Shows, the National Agricultural Advisory Service has had stands at nearly 40 county and district shows in England and Wales this year.

Mr. York: Does not the Minister consider that the London Dairy Show is of more importance than the 40 county shows at which the National Agricultural Advisory Service was represented?

Mr. Williams: I should have thought that a general show was of far greater importance than a show dealing with a particular phase of agriculture.

Smallholdings

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture what arrangements are being made to ensure that land will be avail able to suitable applicants under the pro visions in the Agricultural Act, relating to smallholdings.

Mr. T. Williams: The Smallholdings Advisory Council, which was recently constituted to advise me on smallholdings matters, is meeting this week to consider what arrangements should be made to bring into operation the provisions of the Agriculture Act relating to smallholdings.

Mr. Collins: When my right hon. Friend receives the report of that Committee, will he take steps to implement its findings as quickly as possible, in view of the considerable anxiety there is on this subject?

Mr. Williams: I think perhaps we had better await the report before reaching any conclusions.

Horticultural Glass

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture the present position with regard to the manufacture and delivery of supplies of horticultural glass; and if he is satisfied that available supplies are distributed in a manner best calculated to increase food production.

Mr. T. Williams: Manufacture of horticultural glass has suffered several serious interruptions during the past year, but, if present production targets are achieved, the position should be reasonably satisfactory. The distribution of this glass is not controlled, but I am satisfied that manufacturers are doing their utmost to distribute it fairly and with due regard to the needs of food production.

Mr. Collins: Can my right hon. Friend say if any priority is given to repairs and replacements, or can all this glass go into new production?

Mr. Williams: As I have already stated, this kind of glass is not controlled. Therefore, I should imagine that a person requiring glass, either for new construction or maintenance, would have an equal opportunity of obtaining it.

Dispossessed Farmer (Lawsuit)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture how much the Odium v. Stratton dispossessed farmer's case has now cost the taxpayer.

Mr. T. Williams: The total cost of this case amounted to £6,034 17s. 8d.

Sir W. Smithers: Might I ask the Minister, in order to save further expenditure, and in view of the fact that there are still hundreds, if not thousands of British farmers who were dispossessed and suffering under a burning sense of injustice, if he would, even at this stage, set up an independent committee under an English judge?

Mr. Speaker: This Question only asked how much this case cost, nothing more than that, and the answer has been given.

Sir W. Smithers: With great respect, Sir, in order to avoid further cases of this kind, I am asking that a committee should be set up so that all these cases can come before an independent tribunal.

Mr. Williams: The case referred to by the hon. Member was in reference to a libel case, and I do not know of any similar cases.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture in what category Mr. Odium's farm was classified immediately before the Odium v. Stratton trial commenced.

Mr. T. Williams: It is not my practice to disclose the grading of any particular farm except, on occasion, to the occupier himself.

Sir W. Smithers: But is not the Minister aware that the essence of the Odium v. Stratton case was the classification of Mr. Odium's farm immediately before? May I ask him further, were all the relevant papers asked for submitted at the trial by the Ministry?

Mr. Williams: The fact that this was the one case where libel ensued is a warning not to repeat the offence later.

Mr. Gooch: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that questions dealing with these matters should have been addressed to his predecessor in Office?

Sheep

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the recent announcement that there are now 2,000,000 less sheep in this country than at this time last year, how long he estimates it will take to build up the number to last year's level.

Mr. T. Williams: Owing to the many different factors that influence the rate of growth of the sheep population, it is not possible to make a reliable forecast of the time it will take to replace last winter's losses. I hope, however, that the measures taken to assist sheep farmers who suffered losses, and the recent substantial increase in prices for fat sheep, will encourage farmers to make determined attempts to rebuild the country's flocks as soon as possible.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the danger that farmers will dispose of their flocks, owing to the diversion to human consumption, of foodstuffs which would otherwise be fed to sheep, and that, unless he looks into this, there will be very few sheep left in the country?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member must be aware that I have appealed to the farming community on more than one occasion not to sell potential breeding ewes for the purpose of obtaining a ready penny. I understand that during the last few weeks at the grading centres actually fewer sheep were offered for sale than in the similar weeks of 1946.

Mr. Nicholson: Is not the Minister aware that swedes, and other feeding-stuffs, are being diverted for human consumption?

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Is the Minister aware that he cannot feed sheep on appeals?

Potato Acreage

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Agriculture how much acreage was used for growing potatoes in 1946, 1947, and what is the estimated acreage for 1948.

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Agriculture the acreage of potatoes to be grown in 1948.

Mr. T. Williams: The total acreage of potatoes in the United Kingdom in 1946 was 1,423,000, and in 1947 1,330,000. The target for 1948 is about double the average prewar acreage.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Minister satisfied that if we do get a bad winter again the acreage is sufficient? Will he consult the Ministers of the Service Departments, to see that we get the maximum acreage tilled by troops in Service camps?

Mr. Williams: I am quite sure that those associated with Service camps are making the best use for agricultural purposes, of land available to them. In regard to the first part of the supplementary question, if we get our target of 1,423,000 acres and secure the normal yield of 7.13 tons an acre that means about 10 million tons of potatoes, or 2 million more than we had in 1947.

Mr. Tolley: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient seed potatoes will be forthcoming for this additional planting?

Mr. Vane: When allocating acreages and pressing farmers to plant potatoes,' I hope he will not press counties like Westmorland, where potato growing is difficult, but rather choose areas like the Don Valley, where it is easy?

Mr. Williams: We can only choose areas where we know the contribution will be good, and where it ought to be made for the national supply.

Feedingstuffs

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture when he expects to be able to revise the 1939 basis of rationing feedingstuffs to commercial pig and poultry farmers, so as to provide additional feedingstuffs for those who undertake to put the whole of their output of fat pigs and eggs under contracts recognised by the Ministry of Food.

Mr. T. Williams: While I appreciate the point of the hon. Member's Question, present supplies of feedingstuffs are still not enough to provide commercial rations for more than one-fifth of the number of pigs and poultry registered as having been kept on individual holdings in 1939 or 1940, less a small deduction proportionate to the acreage of the holding. As soon as there is a substantial increase in the supply of feedingstuffs, I shall be ready to reexamine the basis of the rationing scheme.

Mr. Hurd: Can the Minister give an assurance that the present rations will be maintained this winter, and that by next spring, when the rearing season comes, he will be able to give an increase?

Mr. Williams: I am not at all sure about any increases, but I am hopeful that we shall carry through the winter rationing period.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Food to import more feedingstuffs?

Mr. Parkin: Is the difficulty availability, or finance?

Mr. Williams: It is availability.

Crop Targets (Potatoes and Wheat)

Mr. Gooch: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is satisfied that the tar gets set the various counties for potatoes and wheat next year will be realised; and will he indicate the acreages of both already secured through the war agricultural executive committees.

Mr. T. Williams: While preliminary inquiries suggest that in some counties the targets for both wheat and potatoes have not so far been secured, I am hopeful that the renewed drive now being undertaken by the county committees, with the fullest co-operation of the National Farmers' Union, will enable us to attain the desired objectives. In the case of wheat, the prolonged drought has, in some areas, unavoidably prevented autumn sowings to the full extent that farmers intended, but they are being encouraged in every way to sow the maximum practicable acreage of spring wheat.

Mr. Gooch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing feeling in the countryside that he will not get his targets without direction?

Mr. Williams: I am satisfied that that is not the general view of county executive committees. But if we felt that any county was letting the country down, we should not hesitate to use the power we have, although I am satisfied from my contacts with county executive committees that there will be no necessity at all for direction.

Mr. Collins: At what date does my right hon. Friend expect to make a decision on this matter in regard to possible deficiencies and any action which may have to be taken?

Mr. Williams: We have asked for further returns of cropping plans to be supplied by the middle of December, and after that we shall take our decision.

Poultry Stealing

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the scale on which the stealing of poultry from farms is now being conducted; what information he has about the mode of operating of the thieves; and what special measures of protection are being taken.

Mr. T. Williams: I am aware that an increase in poultry stealing from farms

has been reported, but I do not know on what scale it is now taking place, nor the methods adopted by the thieves. Apart from taking all practicable precautions themselves, any poultry keepers who have reason to believe that special measures of protection are necessary should approach the local police.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Would it not be better to remove the precedent for these operations initiated by a Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Major Tufton Beamish: Can the Minister say how many legs the thief has?

Veterinary Education

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the new programme for increasing the livestock population of the country, what steps he proposes to take to ensure a more rapid development of veterinary education in this country; and whether, in this connection, he can give an assurance that legislation will shortly be introduced to deal with the activities of unqualified veterinary practitioners and other related matters.

Mr. T. Williams: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a statement I made on 1st April, 1946, from which he will see that the Government recognise the need for improved facilities for veterinary education, and for dealing with veterinary practice by unregistered persons. I am, however, unable to say at present when it will be possible to introduce legislation.

Mr. Parkin: Will my right hon. Friend consult with the Minister of Labour to see whether unlicensed veterinary practitioners could not be directed to the engineering industry, to produce the machinery in order to import maize, which is waiting in Yugoslavia?

Mr. Williams: That is an entirely different question.

Foot and Mouth Disease (Immunisation)

Mr. Percy Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that his Department is fully informed on the experiments in the immunisation of cattle against foot and mouth disease, carried out in the Argentine; and whether he is prepared to give immediate consideration to the immunisation of British stock generally.

Mr. T. Williams: My Department is fully aware of the nature of the immunisation experiments against foot-and-mouth disease that have been carried out in the Argentine. There are, however, essential differences between conditions in Argentina and here, and I am not prepared to give my support to a practice which, I am advised, could not give complete protection but might tend to mask the disease, and thus to render the eradication policy less effective.

Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that the Argentine Rosenbusch vaccine gives only partial protection, but the Waldmann vaccine provides complete immunity?

Mr. Williams: My veterinary advisers inform me to the contrary. In any case, two of my veterinary surgeons are in the Argentine now.

Mr. Turton: Will they go on to Chile, where they have got a good deal further than the Argentine?

Women's Land Army (Strength)

Mr. P. Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture the present strength of the Women's Land Army; the numbers recruited during the past six months; and the number which it has been found impossible to place in immediate employment.

Mr. T. Williams: The enrolled strength of the Women's Land Army on 18th November was 26,808, and on that date 146 recruits were awaiting places. Some 8,178 volunteers were enrolled in the preceding six months.

Mr. Hurd: Can the Minister tell us what the wastage was; was there a net increase?

Mr. Williams: The wastage over the same period was somewhere about 8,000, many of whom were entitled to release according to their contract.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECTS. (RUSSIAN-BORN WIVES)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he

is aware that an attempt is being made in this country to establish that the refusal of the Soviet Government to allow the wives and children of British ex-Service men to come to Great Britain arises directly from the alleged detention of Soviet citizens in the British zone of Germany and the alleged detention of Soviet children in British-controlled orphanages in Germany; and whether he will take steps to refute these charges.

Mr. May hew: The suggestion that the detention in the Soviet Union of the Soviet wives of British subjects is connected with and justified by the alleged detention of Soviet displaced persons in the British zone of Germany is false on two counts. In the first place we do not hinder the repatriation of any displaced persons who wish to return to their homes. We are glad to see them go. We have repatriated more that 1,140,000 Soviet citizens from zones under our command, and repatriations of volunteers are still continuing. On 7th September, 1945, the Soviet Press published a statement by General Golikov, the chief Soviet repatriation officer, who said that it was necessary to note with gratitude the great assistance rendered by the Allies in repatriating Soviet citizens freed by them from German captivity. In the second place, the Russians have been detaining some of these wives for as long as five years. The displaced persons question, on the other hand, only arose in 1944, three years ago. The same is true as regards the orphans, an issue which was only raised this summer, and which formed the subject of a statement issued to the Press by His Majesty's Government on 5th October. The Soviet Government cannot have based their decision to detain the wives on either of the two considerations which they have belatedly adduced to justify their conduct.

Mr. Gammans: Will the Under-Secretary of State explain to the Russian Government, and especially to Mr. Molotov, while he is here in London, that to us the acid test of liberty and democracy is the treatment of humble people like these?

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.31 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I am presenting to the House of Commons the last of the Measures which the Government have adopted for the expansion of the social services of this country. The House will be aware that in the last few years a number of substantial steps have been taken in transforming and enlarging the social services. Family allowances are in operation; increased old age pensions are being paid; a full scheme of National Insurance is on the statute book, and will come into operation in July next; the National Health Service is on the statute book, and will come into operation on the same date; and there is in preparation a Bill for which my right hon. Friend the' Home Secretary will be responsible, for the welfare of deprived children. The National Health Service will take care of the sick. The new Child Welfare Service will, as I have said, take care of the children who are deprived of their parents and their guardians. However, there will still remain, after all these things have been done, 400,000 persons on outdoor relief, and 50,000 in institutions. There thus remain, after we have bitten into the main body of the Poor Law, these residual categories which have to be provided for. This Bill, therefore, must be seen as the coping stone on the structure of the social services of Great Britain.
The Bill itself is simple in character, and I ought not to find much difficulty in making its provisions clear to the House. I would, however, say that, simple though the Bill is, its provisions are exceedingly important, and this occasion marks the end of a whole period of the social history of Great Britain. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House would wish me to take this opportunity of paying a warm and sincere tribute to the services of Beatrice and Sidney Webb. They made a most distinguished contribution towards thought on this subject, but they were not alone. There were many others, in

all parties and in all fields of public activity, and now we are to see the con-sumation of their efforts. Indeed, the Poor Law has been humanised in its administration in the course of the last 20 to 30 years. Nevertheless, the taint remains, and, of course, many of the statutory inhibitions are still there.
The Government approach the problem from the angle that they wish to see the whole residual problem in two special categories. They wish to consider assistance by way of monetary help made a national responsibility and welfare a local responsibility. Where the individual is immediately concerned, where warmth and humanity of administration is the primary consideration, then the authority which is responsible should be as near to the recipient as possible. Therefore, it is proposed that we shall transfer to the Assistance Board, to be renamed the National Assistance Board, the responsibility for providing the financial help which will still be needed, because there must always stand behind the existing social services a national scheme to assist people in peculiar and special circumstances. There will be a number of persons who will not be eligible for insurance benefit. There will be some who will not be eligible for unemployment benefit, and there will be persons who will be the subject of sudden affliction, like fires and floods and circumstances of that kind, who will need to have help from some special organisation.
It is, therefore, proposed, as I say, that the National Assistance Board shall have the responsibility of providing help of that sort for persons in need of help. The National Assistance Board, since it has been created, has established itself as a humane system of administration, and it is, I am sure, perfectly proper that at this stage we should recruit the services of that Board as an institution to which we entrust the assistance of persons in monetary need. The scale of National Assistance will be determined by regulations, to be presented for the approval of the House of Commons by my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance. There will be an opportunity for full examination when they are presented, and as hon. Members know, they will appear before the House of Commons in draft form, and every opportunity will be given for discussion when they are presented. It is


not, therefore, my intention at the moment to attempt to prophesy what these scales are to be, but I do not believe they will meet with resistance when they are presented.
There are a number of persons for whom special provision will have to be made. There are, for example, the blind. Their welfare will be the responsibility of the principal local welfare authorities—the county boroughs and county councils in England and the county councils and large burghs in Scotland. For some time past we have given a special place in our social services to the welfare, care and training of the blind. Among all handicapped persons, the blind are the most handicapped. Milton expresses this in unforgettable words in "Samson Agonistes" when he says:
Light, the prime work of God, to me's extinct
And all her various objects of delight Annulled.…
We propose to place upon the Assistance Board the duty of providing maintenance of the blind and upon the local authorities a duty to make special schemes for their training and welfare, both domicilary and otherwise. Of course, to some extent this has been done by some authorities on an extremely generous and humane scale under the Act of 1920, but we hope to enlarge these services in the future.
There is another category of persons for whom the Assistance Board will have a special responsibility. I refer to those who are suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. As hon. Members will know, we have developed in this country, perhaps as much as any other country in the world, a system of mass radiography by which it is possible to detect the presence of tuberculosis even before the victim is aware of it. There was an alternative scheme adopted during the war to encourage persons in the early stages of tuberculosis to give up their jobs and to undergo treatment. Special scales were laid down in order to encourage them to do so.
We propose to continue that scheme and to extend it, but, because of the nature of its origin, because it was originally intended as a scheme to increase the labour force, it has one very grievous feature. The allowances cease when it is found that the condition is incurable.

This is a cruel affliction. We propose to end it. Surely, if a person has been encouraged to give up his employment in order to undergo treatment, and if it is found that the treatment is useless, it is far better that he be kept until he dies than that he be told that because he is incurable no help can be given. Therefore, that feature will cease. The treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis, like that for other forms of sickness, will be the responsibility of the National Assistance Board, on the one side, and the regional hospital boards, on the other, it being the function of the National Assistance Board to supply the financial provision, and the hospital service to provide the treatment. This division of responsibility will run throughout the scheme and, as I hope to be able to show, it will have very important and, I hope, valuable consequences.
The National Assistance Board will provide its assistance on the basis of a determination of needs which we propose to bring up to date. If I might be allowed a personal reference, I have spent many years of my life in fighting the means test. Now we have practically ended it. In the future only the resources of the man and dependent children—that is, children under 16 years of age—will be taken into account in determining their need. Where there are other members of the household, they will be regarded as making some contribution towards the payment of rent, as at present. As a general rule, the present regulations prescribe no more than 7s. a week, and very often less.
In calculating the personal resources of applicants there will be the usual disregard of superannuation and war pensions. They will remain within definitely prescribed limits. War savings are protected, and, as regards other capital, we propose to raise the existing £25 to £50. That is to say, a person must have £75 of savings before any deduction can be made in the amount of assistance to be given, and only 6d. a week—less than 2 per cent. per annum—will be deducted where the capital is between £75 and £100. In addition to the usual disregards we are making this alteration. Of course, under the Determination of Needs Act, 1941, there are also other disregards. The owner-occupier will have disregarded his house and the effects of the household.
There is another category for which the local welfare authorities will, at first, make provision as agents of the Assistance Board. They will be the vagrants. This class of person, picturesque and very often lovers of the countryside, almost disappeared during the war. It is a fact that full employment practically extinguishes this type of person. The old method was to give help to the tramp in the form of deterrents. The Elizabethan Poor Law punished the homeless vagrant in the most savage manner. I have been looking up the Elizabethan statute. This is what it says:
And every such person, upon his apprehension, shall, by order of a justice or constable assisted by advice of the Minister and one other of the parish, be stripped naked from the middle upwards and be openly whipped until his body be bloody.
We are a long way from that now, but we hope to take a step further still. Last year I sent a circular to the Poor Law authorities advising them that it is not the duty of the Poor Law authority now merely to pass the tramp on from one place to another, but to give him opportunities of rehabilitation towards a settled life. This system will be continued in the future on a larger scale. It will be the responsibility of the National Assistance Board to provide centres for training, education and reconditioning, and to make available to the applicants all the resources of the employment exchange. In the interregnum, until proper institutions can be created for this purpose, the National Assistance Board will use accommodation provided by local authorities.
There is another category of persons for whom we shall have to accept an even larger measure of responsibility than we have had in the past, and these are old persons, By 1970, old persons—that is, persons reaching pensionable age—will be one in five of the total population. It is a staggering figure; indeed, it can be said that, in some respects, the proper care and welfare of the aged is the peculiar problem of modern society. We have, of course, gone a long way towards it by making provision for increased old age pensions, and it is one of the more fortunate and agreeable aspects of this problem that modern medicine and better nutrition enables old people to continue working longer than they formerly did. My right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance

informs me that, of the 7,000 old age pensioners who become eligible for the pension every week, two-thirds continue in their employment. That is a very remarkable fact, because we all know, from our own experience, that it is very much better if we can continue to follow the rhythms of our normal life, because when those rhythms are abandoned, decay is accelerated. Further, it is a very welcome addition to the total labour force of the country.
The Nuffield Foundation Survey reports that 95 per cent. of old people live independent lives in their own homes or the homes of their children, but it does not always follow that old folk want to live in the homes of their children. Indeed, in some respects, living with their children is in many' cases merely an expression of the lack of housing, and we all know how the forced juxtaposition of old and young people can produce very disagreeable domestic conditions. Where the association is voluntary and arises out of mutual love and respect, then it produces a mutual endorsement of each other's regard, but, where it is forced either by poverty or by the absence of alternative accommodation, it can be a very serious source of domestic disturbance and un-happiness. Further, it is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the psychology of old people that they cling tenaciously to privacy. They do not want to be interfered with; they want to lead their own lives. They do not want to be dependent on other people, and, as they grow older, they become jealous of their independence.
Therefore, we have decided to make a great departure in the treatment of old people. The workhouse is to go. Although many people have tried to humanise it, it was in many respects a very evil institution. We have determined that the right way to approach this problem is to give the welfare authorities, as we shall now describe them, the power to establish special homes. I have been cudgelling my brains to find a name for them, but it is very difficult.

Mr. Shurmer: Eventide Homes.

Mr. Bevan: No. When we talk to some old people, they think they are facing the dawn, not eventide. If we call them "Sanctuaries," it is almost as bad, and, if we call them "Retreats,"


it is worse, because what we are really thinking about is a type of old people who are still able to look after themselves, who can, to use a colloquialism, "do for themselves," but who are unable to do the housework, the laundry, cook meals and things of that sort. Therefore, we have to think of a type of place where these services can be rendered to the old -people, and, at the same time, leave them the maximum of privacy and independence. This means that the buildings to which I now refer must not be so large as to become institutions. Bigness is the enemy of humanity. That is the reason why the Metropolis is such a bad place to live in. When hon. Members opposite nod their heads enthusiastically to this principle, let them remember that it is one of the most unfortunate features of the last 30 years that London has grown at the expense of the rest of the country.
If we have an institution too large, we might have a reproduction of the workhouse atmosphere, with the workhouse master and all the regimentation and the rules that have to be obeyed, and, therefore, it seems to us that the optimum limit for these homes must be about 25 to 30 persons. If we build them of that size, it is possible to name them and not call them by some general name at all, but to call them by some special name that belongs to each of them, in exactly the same way as a lot of residential hotels. We might call them "High Mead" or "Low Mead," or "The Limes," or whatever it may be. There is no reason at all why the public character of these places should not be very much in the background, because the whole idea is that the welfare authorities should provide them and charge an economic rent for them, so that any old persons who wish to go may go there in exactly the same way as many well-to-do people have been accustomed to go into residential hotels.
It is of the essence of the scheme, if it is to succeed, that old people who avail themselves of these institutions should be of mixed income groups, because it will at once destroy the character of these places if we have merely the most indigent persons living there. It often happens in our towns and villages that, when old people have reached this stage, they are anxious still to remain with their own neighbours and live among them. A considerable number would probably

come into these places, if they were made agreeable and were not tarnished in the very slightest degree by association with the old Poor Law administration.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question? He says that they should pay an economic rent. Does that mean that each individual must pay the rent, or that the institution, as a whole, must be economic?

Mr. Bevan: I will explain the position in more detail shortly; I was coming to that point. It is not that the institution as a whole should pay, but that the individual should pay the normal charges for accommodation there. This is the point concerning which I asked hon. Members earlier to have regard to the distinction between the functions of the National Assistance Board, on the one side, and the welfare authorities, on the other. Where an individual has not the resources to enable him to pay the normal charges for the accommodation, he goes to the National Assistance Board, and it is the Board that must put him in the position to pay the minimum charges of the hotel. In such circumstances, of course, there will be lower charges so that the home, as a whole, would not be economic; the welfare authority would itself be making a contribution, but the minimum charge would be 21s. a week. As the old age pension is 26s. a week, that would leave a margin for the individual.
Therefore, we should have in the home a number of persons, some of whom would be paying the normal charges, and the Assistance Board would be paying to the individuals and not to the authorities. The National Assistance Board puts the money into the possession of the individual old age pensioner, who then goes in a perfectly respectable and dignified way to the hotel and pays the charges that the hotel makes, with, as I have already said, a minimum of 21s. a week. This means that, so far as such a person's neighbours are concerned in the same hotel, they do not know who is putting that person in the position to pay the charges. There must be no distinction between those able to pay the full charges themselves and those who are helped to pay the minimum charges by the National Assistance Board. That is a very important consideration which must be borne in mind by everybody when they


are considering this problem. This is the main provision which we hope to make for the old people.
I have already referred to the scheme for the blind so I do not propose to refer to it any more, because the details of it will come up in Committee. There are, however, a number of other categories of persons who require assistance. For instance, there are the deaf—often neglected. Deafness is a fearful affliction, and very much more attention will have to be given to it than has been given to it in the past. When the National Health Service comes into operation, we hope to be in a position to have a large number of aural aids ready for free distribution to the deaf of this country. There are also other handicapped persons, either congenital or through accident. Such people will need to be attended to, and, in particular, to be taught occupations, either in industrial establishments or in their own homes. This will also be the responsibility of the welfare authority dovetailing into the work of the Ministry of Labour which has responsibility under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act. Therefore, there is this clear distinction which we are drawing between the functions of the National Assistance Board and of the welfare authorities. The welfare authorities will cease to be Poor Law authorities; the public assistance committee will cease to exist. A special committee will be set up for the purpose, or the local authority might get the permission of the Ministry of Health to use one of the existing committees for this purpose.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does that mean all of them?

Mr. Bevan: No, it means the welfare authorities, the county and county boroughs in England and Wales, and the counties and large burghs in Scotland. They will be the welfare authorities for this purpose. As I say, these are the main distinctions. The extent to which we can carry them out will depend on our resources, and the extent to which we can establish these new hotels for the old people will depend upon the development of our building programme. But, of course, it must be remembered that the provision of these homes is also a contribution to the housing problem itself. As we put young married people into new

homes at the one end, and thus relieve the housing problem, we can take the old people out at the other end, and, again, relieve the housing problem there. Obviously, it will not be possible for these hotels to spring up overnight; it will take some time to build and equip them. However, we have set our feet upon that road, and we intend to march upon it as quickly as possible.
These are the main provisions of the Bill—simple to state in this House of Commons, detailed to carry out in practice, but bound to have a profound effect upon the welfare and the wellbeing of large numbers of people in the country. It is, I should have thought, a very agreeable thing that, despite all our difficulties, hardships and the diminution of our resources, we are able to turn our attention to this work at the present time. The conditions in which the poor lived in the past were harsh and inhumane. Poverty was treated as though it were a crime. Those of us who have been associated with boards of guardians will know how frightfully difficult it was to administer the Poor Law in a humane fashion. Some of the rules of the old workhouses read like pieces from fiction. Here is Rule 23 which says:
That all children from five years old to 12 shall be allowed one hour's respite from work to attend the schoolmaster for instruction in reading.
Rule 24 says:
That encouragement be given to the industrious poor out of the profit of their labour not exceeding 2d. in the 1s. each.
Some of the Poor Law reformers of 1830 may have been humane men, but their regulations were inhuman. Sidney and Beatrice Webb, writing about the workhouse said:
The young servant out of place, the prostitute recovering from disease, the feebleminded woman of any age, the girl with her first baby, the unmarried mother coming in to be confined of her third or fourth bastard, the servile, the paralytic, the epileptic, the respectable, deserted wife, the widow to whom outdoor relief has been refused, are all herded indiscriminately together.
Twining, described a workhouse of the 1850's, where:
The 'nurses' were pauper inmates, usually infirm and more often drunk than sober, who were remunerated for their services by an amended dietary and a pint of beer to which was added a glass of gin when their duties were peculiarly repulsive. Underneath the dining hall was the laundry, with the fumes of which it was filled four days of the


week, while the lying-in ward was immediately above the female insane ward, the presence of a noisy lunatic or two in which no doubt greatly conduced to the well-being of the parturient women. The ward for fevers and foul cases contained but two beds and was separated from a tinker's shop by a lath and plaster partition.
These are not things we are immediately leaving behind, because we have left them behind for some little while, but this is the sort of thing on which we are finally turning our backs. This is the sort of thing which has been a reproach to a civilised community. For me, personally, it is a very great honour to have the opportunity of introducing this Bill, and I am sure that to the House as a whole it is a very agreeable occasion indeed to see it read for the Second time.

4.10 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure that we shall all join with the Minister in the sentiment which he has just expressed. It is a great pleasure to the House to be able to take up and continue the work of ameliorating the social services on which the House has been engaged for so many years, and in particular that we should now have the opportunity of having this Bill read for a Second time. I think all of us on this side would wish to join with the right hon. Gentleman in the tribute he paid to the great work of Beatrice and Sidney Webb. But although it was the majority and minority reports of the Poor Law Commission which opened the great discussions on this matter, it would not be fitting on a day like this to omit from mention David Lloyd George, who first brought into existence the Health Insurance schemes, and before him, Mr. Asquith, who first introduced old age pensions. Nor on such an occasion would it be fair to omit the name of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who introduced for the first time the contributory system and was the first man to lower the age for old age pensions. It would be most ungenerous on such a day if we omitted the names of any of those who have been the pioneers and architects of the schemes on which, as the Minister himself said, he is now placing a coping stone.
Of course, the problem of relief has been a problem in this country for many centuries. It has always been the glory of this country that it was never willing to omit consideration of the weaker or

poorer classes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I repeat, the poorer classes. The record of this country in the friendly relations between the richer and the poorer people is a record for which many a Continental country and almost every Asiatic country would give its eyes. Let right hon. and hon. Members who attack us on every occasion, telling us not to run down our own country, also live up to their own words. The record of this country in the humane and friendly treatment of its citizens is one of which this country may well be proud. It is quite true that the difficulties during the industrial revolution—[Interruption.] I wish the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) would do me the justice of allowing me to speak. We on this side did not interrupt the Minister.
I was pointing out that the kindlier traditions of an older time were lost during the industrial revolution, and I was about to refer to the necessity for the smaller institutions and the desirability that they should not have an institutional character because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, their bigness was the enemy of humanity. I was remembering one of the first of the Barchester novels, Trollope's novel, "The Warden," and Hiram's foundation was admittedly such an institution as the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. If I remember rightly it was called Hiram's hospital, so that even in those days the proper nomenclature, to which the right hon. Gentleman always attaches great importance, and rightly so, had not been achieved. It is also true that the smaller and friendly institution was the legacy of more ancient times, which in itself bears tribute to the fact that the problem of the treatment of the weaker brethren has always been a problem to which the best citizens of this country gave their close attention.
The co-existence of a nation-wide relief system with voluntary organisations of one kind or another is also very old. The tithes forming a nation-wide relief organisation were supplemented by the benefactions of various monastic and other organisations, and this combination of a nation-wide organisation and the work of local authorities and voluntary organisations is inherent in our social traditions. The right hon. Gentleman's tribute to that co-operation, not merely in the Bill but also in his speech, is among the reasons why we on this side are glad to see this Bill


today. [Interruption.] The hon. Member must learn to contain himself while other people are speaking. I will have something to say to the hon. Member before very long. He can wait until then.

Mr. S. Silverman: Why should I?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Because in this House it is a tradition that one person speaks at a time—a tradition which the hon. Member has never mastered.
After the work of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, I think it would be fair to claim that the Act of 1940 was a further step in advance. The Act of 1940 introduced two principles which the right hon. Gentleman is maintaining today. That Act divided the insurable risk from the non-insurable risk, and put the non-insurable risk into the category of a nation-wide responsibility. That nationwide responsibility was first recognised in 1936, but was afterwards stressed in the Act of 1940. I remember that in 1940 the House was divided. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite were pressing for a flat rate treatment of the old age pension system, and the Government at that time felt that that was an impossible approach to the problem, and that the flat rate increase of 5s. which had been suggested was totally inadequate to deal with the problem as we saw it. Therefore, the principle of the supplementary pension administered by the Assistance Board was introduced. At that time there was a very active controversy on the matter. Again, that controversy has been settled on very much the lines on which we were then discussing it.
There still remains the Assistance Board to which I was glad to hear the tributes paid by the right hon. Gentleman. In strong terms, and not without justification, he attacked the Poor Law and the Poor Law taint. It made me wonder all the more why he and his hon. Friends attached such importance to the maintenance of the Poor Law system in 1940, because it was the Poor Law system which they then desired to preserve. It was the Poor Law system as against the Assistance Board to which they devoted all their praise. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) paid eloquent tribute to the Poor Law which he desired to see maintained. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) paid tribute

to the Poor Law. I think the Minister of Health also paid eloquent tribute to the Poor Law, and even said he desired to see it continued. I think he will find that that is so.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has got it all wrong.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think the right hon. Gentleman is inaccurate. Does he challenge what I say?

Mr. Griffiths: May I clear this matter up? What the Government in 1940 did was to bring in a Measure by which old age pensions of 10s. each week could be supplemented. What we urged then was that the basic rate of pension ought to be raised. That is precisely what we have done.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. I was speaking not of that question but of the praise and tributes paid to the Poor Law by hon. Members opposite, by the right hon. Gentleman, and by the Minister of Health himself—the Poor Law system, which they desired to see continued. Is that challenged?

Mr. Shurmer: Is it not a fact that the fear not only of Members of this House but of many of us who were members of local authorities were justified—the fear that the local touch would be lost? We had brought up the relieving officers to the way we required they should act in dealing with the old age pensioners in our towns and cities. Our fears have been justified in many instances by some of the National Assistance officers.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is a strange thing then that this Bill proposes to carry those duties away from the local authorities to the National Assistance Board officers.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that the amount to be left to the Assistance Board after the whole of the needs have been meet by all the other measures—insurance allowances, old age pensions, sickness benefits-will be very small indeed. Only the residual categories will be left.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: What the right hon. Gentleman is proposing now is that it is exactly these residual activities them-


selves, the most personal and humane of all the activities, which are to be left to the Assistance Board, which are to be under the administration of the Assistance Board. The right hon. Gentleman himself wished these things to remain with the Poor Law. He himself said in Committee on the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act:
If I wanted to burst up the machinery of the Unemployment Assistance Board, I could not do it more effectively than in the way the Government intend to do it now, because … the Government are handing over to the Unemployment Assistance Board a task to which it is wholly unsuited. That personal relationship which necessarily must exist between those who are giving assistance to the old people and the old people themselves is so essential a part of the effective and humane administration of the assistance that people are frightened that this is to be revolutionised and that the old people are now to be passed under the control of officials over whose conduct there is no effective local check."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1940; Vol. 357, c. 2305.]
I put a question to him. I said:
I do not think that the argument has been advanced from any side of the Committee that the matter should be left to the public assistance authority.

Mr. Bevan: Yes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1940; Vol. 357, c. 2317.]

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has utterly misunderstood the nature of the proposals now before the House. Indeed, I must apologise, because I could not have made myself clear. What I have said is, that we are making a complete separation between the functions of the central authority and the functions of the local welfare authorities. In this case the functions of the National Assistance Board are cash functions. They put money into the possession of individuals; but the welfare of the individual is left to local administration.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, but it was precisely because they claimed in those days that the Assistance Board does not put people in possession of the cash required that they objected to it. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) on the Third Reading of the Act of 1940, said:
It is to be taken away from the public assistance committee, not because the old people prefer to go to the Unemployment Assistance Board rather than to the public assistance committee, but because the public assistance committee consists of elected persons

who have to account to the electors for what they do. That is why you take it from them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1940; Vol. 358, c. 948–9]
The hon. Member will find on reading the Debate on the Bill that that is what he said. [Interruption.] He did not make a very great success of his previous interruption, and had better not go on further with this one.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman unnecessarily, but surely he understands—or have I misunderstood the Minister of Health?—that what the Minister is proposing in this Bill is to hand back to local authorities just those very things which the last Act took away from them. Why in the world should I protest now when we are handing back to the local authorities the very function which the local authority can best perform, namely, the supervision of the people's welfare and co-operation with them in it?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne totally fails to understand the point. The hon. Member was then arguing that the local authority should have the power to give money for relief. [Interruption.] I have read the hon. Member's speech carefully, and he obviously has not done so. It was because the giving of the additional monetary allowances was being transferred from the local authority to the Assistance Board that the hon. Member objected, and he was in favour of leaving the monetary allowances to the local authorities.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not realise that in the days to which he is now referring there was no division of functions at all? When the Government took away the right to grant the money they took away everything there was. What is now being done is to separate the two things, so as to produce the results I, personally, have always wanted, namely, that the financial burden should be a national burden and not a local one, and that welfare should be a local function and not a national function.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: What the hon. Member attacked in 1940 and divided the House against, was the proposal that the financial burden should be a national burden and not a local burden.

Mr. Silverman: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not understand, nobody can help him.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member is not very good at understanding things. himself, and so he should not complain about other people. If he reads his speeches and studies the record of the Division Lobbies, he will see that he was voting against the suggestion that the money allowances should be a national business; and that is what we put through, and what the right hon. Gentleman is maintaining.
The other point, of course, which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have abandoned altogether is the non-contributory pension, for many years it was their contention that pensions should be non-contributory. They have abandoned that. That is all to the good. We come together on that general agreement. Now the whole nation is at one upon the contributory pension and upon supplementation by a central authority, by the Assistance Board. These are enormous sums which the national Board and the Minister for National Insurance have to administer. These also are, as the Minister of Health has rightly said, facts touching the very life of our people. There were arguments that the people would not wish to go to the National Assistance Board. Those arguments were disproved in fact. Some 900,000 people were transferred to it in the first instance. The numbers steadily rose until in October, 1946, they came up to over 1,500,000.
The accusation, therefore, that the Assistance Board would not be humane in its administration was not borne out in practice. The apprehensions which were expressed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were proved to be unfounded. They were proved to be unfounded by the enormous numbers of the older people who resorted to it. They were proved unfounded by the tribute the right hon. Gentleman the -Minister of Health paid to the administration today. They have been proved unfounded by the fact that the House as a whole is now taking the Assistance Board, and is entrusting it with greater powers and duties than ever before, and with authority and responsibility which it would be hard to exaggerate. That is also a great tribute to the humane administration of Lord Rushcliffe, Chairman of the Unemployment Assistance

Board, of Lord Soulbury, the present Chairman of the Assistance Board, and also to those other men who dispelled the fear which existed in many quarters that administration might be ungenerous or inhumane. To those men also a very great debt of gratitude is due from the country as a whole, and, in particular, from this House, whose servants they are.
The Minister made one or two other points of considerable interest. I was glad to see that he was maintaining and extending the tuberculosis schemes which were introduced by the Coalition Government. I thought, as he did, that the provision that these allowances should be paid only when there was a chance of recovery, as an incentive to rejoin the labour force, was harsh and inhumane. If I may say so, I thought the right hon. Gentleman was very well advised in his decision to extend and continue those allowances even though the patient proves to be incurable, or, at any rate, to be so deeply smitten by the disease that he cannot return to the army of industry as an active, marching soldier.
Of course, that will place on the Government a still greater responsibility for finding the nursing staff to make sure that the treatment is available for these people. The tuberculosis schemes are sadly held up just now because it is not possible to staff all the beds which are in existence; and as long as we are in that position it is not really necessary, or even advisable, to talk about using more money for bricks and mortar provision when we already have bricks and mortar provision above the range which our staffing will enable us to bring into play. I very much hope it will be possible for the Minister of National Insurance to say a little more about that when he winds up the Debate tonight.
As the Minister has said, the coping stone rests upon a number of previous provisions, some of which have been supplied by the present Government, and some of which have been supplied by previous Governments. But that is a matter for the past, for we have now to look forward into the future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but the future rests upon the past, and these provisions which have been made could not have been made now had it not been for the hard and devoted work of many


Parliaments before this one, which has recently been elected. Naturally, the Minister stressed the points of the Bill which he thought were most interesting and most advantageous. However, I think he will agree it is also true that the setting up of a national organisation will throw a greater responsibility than before upon this House.
These sums which are being reviewed here are colossal. The estimated cost of National Insurance at present is £452 million, which one has to compare with the total money raised by the rates of £200 million. That National Insurance figure is estimated to rise to £749 million by 1978. That will certainly throw a very great responsibility upon the Government to maintain a steady financial level, because if money values change it will prove a great deal more difficult to move these national wide scales up and down than it was to adjust the scales of a great number of separate authorities.
By the way, in the adjustment of the nation-wide scales, I am interested to see that the right hon. Gentleman has maintained the veto of the other place absolutely unimpaired. It shows how very little importance right hon. Gentlemen opposite really attach to their principles for limiting the suspensory veto; and that they leave untouched the suspensory veto of the other place on something as important as these scales and regulations, not merely for one year or for two years, but for the whole duration of a Parliament, is a fact about which we do not complain. The other place has, naturally, always been reasonable in its treatment of any matters in dispute, and I think it will continue to be reasonable here, too.
However, in dealing with his major question the right hon. Gentleman left one or two admittedly minor questions rather in the background, I thought. There are certain provisions in the Bill about which we should like a little more information. For instance, in Clause 45 there are very sweeping powers with which is is proposd to endow permanent officials. These powers have previously existed in local hands, but it is now intended to spread them far and wide over the whole country. Any person who is aged or infirm can be removed from his house on the certificate of one medical officer of health, supported

by the court. Such a person may be removed and placed in a hospital, or other place, either within or without the area of the appropriate authority and detained therein, and that detention order may from time to time be extended by the court,
for such further period not exceeding three months, as the court may determine.
I think the Minister will agree that in the case of the other people who are subject to detention, the certificate of one medical officer alone—

Mr. Bevan: It comes to the court.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, I said it goes before the court; but, remember, in the case of other classes of persons who are so detained, the person is summoned before the court. This makes no provision at all for the person being examined by the court or summoned. The only person who has to conduct an examination in the matter is the certifying officer.

Mr. Bevan: He is the medical officer of health.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: He is the medical officer of health, it is quite true, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that in most cases at least two certificates are necessary before taking the pretty grave step of removing a citizen from his house and detaining him under an indeterminate sentence on an indeterminate order. Before that step is embarked upon and maintained I think more than one certificate is usual.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that only one medical certificate is needed on a three day order, in order to remove a person from his home if he is deemed to be insane?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: But subsequently two certificates must be obtained. The removal is all very well, but after that two medical certificates must be obtained and, what is more, the person then comes within the purview of the Board of Control. I am simply arguing that, in giving these sweeping powers, it would be as well to consider, perhaps during the Committee stage, whether, for the nation as a whole, something much wider in safeguards for the persons in question might not be necessary.

Mr. Bevan: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree that where an old person is living in a house and is utterly incapable of looking after himself, who has no one at all who can look after him, and where such people are in a very bad state of health and sanitary condition, some authority must be responsible for looking after them, and someone must do something about it. It is in the interests of the old people themselves that this power is taken, and not in the interests of a tyrannical State. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at all the other Subsections of the Clause, he will find protection after protection for the liberty of the subject.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman naturally states the extreme case. We must remember that it is the borderline cases where injustices may arise. No one will quarrel in regard to the extreme case of a person living in very insanitary conditions, who is totally incapable of looking after himself; but these cases shade away to a point where a legitimate difference of opinion might reasonably arise.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): The court decides.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, but in such cases, in the tradition of our country, the court does not decide simply on the evidence of one man. In mental cases, either the individual is summoned before the court, or the court has the individual examined. We do not think these wide and sweeping powers should be lightly put on the statute book. They will apply not merely to the extreme cases, but to the borderline and marginal cases, and that is where injustice might easily arise. It is one of the examples of what inevitably occurs when this House is brought in as a final determining authority. This House is being brought in through the Minister. The Board is connected with the Minister, and it is only through the Minister that we are able to raise questions about the actions of the Board and other actions arising out of this Bill.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the argument which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is propounding not an imputation upon the medical profession, of which he is such a distinguished ornament?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not think the desirability of having two certificates has ever been held to be an imputation on the medical profession. In fact, in many cases it is regarded as being a protection. I do not think that consultation has ever been regarded as an imputation. Up to now I have not heard that medical men in general regard the previous provisions regarding this kind of thing as any sort of imputation on their profession.
In regard to residential accommodation, as the Minister has pointed out, it may be some considerable time before this is available. Although, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it will in itself be an addition to our housing accommodation, in that it will release other housing accommodation, these, as we know, are matters about which it is very difficult to prophesy. The Minister has indicated that he will do his best to make headway with this provision, and we in our turn will await with interest the headway he makes. The charges are to be substantial, leaving no more than a margin of some 5s. to the old people in the instance he gave. I notice that hospital accommodation is to remain free, but that the pension is to be adjusted. Can we be told exactly what that means, because it would appear as if the two sentences of the statute cancel each other out? It seems to indi-date on first sight that the pensions will be decreased pro tanto with the accommodation in the hospitals. The provision for refusing to maintain oneself is very severe indeed. The Minister nowadays takes strong views about these things. We may find ourselves unduly harsh in these matters. The provisions of the Elizabethan Statute were well couched in the savage terms of those savage times, were, I think, directed towards making an able-bodied person maintain himself; the hon. Gentleman is trying to secure exactly the same object by the technique of our days of fine and imprisonment.
These criticisms of ours are slightly more difficult, because this Bill is brought in before the local authorities, who are so closely concerned, have had time to give it adequate consideration. I have a complaint from the City of Glasgow that its Parliamentary Bills Committee has had no time to examine this Measure. Although the Second Reading is today, the Parliamentary Bills Committee is only today able to sit and consider it. They ask me to ascertain from the Minister what are the


provisions for the payment of compensation to persons who suffer loss of employment, or loss or diminution of emoluments, attributable to the passing of the Bill. They are anxious to ensure that these are not being debarred from consideration by the Financial Resolution, because they consider that the Clause as it stands requires amendment. I am sure that the Minister will not complain if we do our best to give examination to this very great Measure, which covers a great number of our people, and is largely, as he has said, the culmination of a long series of Acts and administrations. We believe that it will throw a greater strain than before on this House, because many functions previously administered locally are now being taken over by the central authority. We agree that the monetary functions should be taken over by the central authority. Therefore, we are supporting the Second Reading.
A very considerable amount of local co-operation will still be required. We are absolutely convinced of that, and the Minister made it clear that that was his view. It is a great tribute to the strength and humanity of this country that at this time, with our diminished resources, we should be moving forward on this path. I felt a certain pride myself when in 1940, I was able to bring forward a Measure, however imperfect and however many its defects, whereby we were able to continue to make progress in the teeth of the tumult of that time. The supplements which were granted relieved the position of many old folk, who otherwise were feeling very sadly the pinch of poverty. The advance now being made is admittedly part of a much greater advance. The raising of the general level of the pension schemes, the general flat-rate level, has undoubtedly, as the Minister said, diminished the ambit over which our emergency measures run. But the safety net has to operate.
That we can turn our attention to this at this time, and in spite of our stringent financial position, is, I am sure, something which makes every one of us, without distinction of party, feel to that extent a sense of relief. There is a sense of proceeding along the line which all of us, in our hearts, desire to proceed along It was Henry IV, of France, who said that the purpose of government was that every peasant should have a chicken in

his pot. It all comes down to that. The great schemes of administration and finance come down to the comfort and decency of the ordinary citizen.' That we should now be able to make this step along that road is an occasion on which I compliment the Minister of Health. I am sure that the whole House, without exception, will feel today that in the Second Reading of this Bill a good day's work is being done.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Viant: I am very pleased today to have the privilege and opportunity of saying a few words in support of this Bill. Much has been said about the social legislation that has been passed through this House in recent years. It has taken us at least 40 years to break up our Poor Law system, for it was in 1909 that the Poor Law Commission made their report. Since then, there has been a considerable improvement in public opinion. As one who took part in the early agitation after the findings of that Commission, I feel that today is a very great day in the history of this Parliament, and indeed, in the history of this country, and that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health must be highly delighted that he has been privileged to have the opportunity of introducing this Bill.
I well remember in my apprenticeship days, when I was working with some of the finest craftsmen in this country, that one of the nightmares of those men, some of whom were advanced in years, was their concern as to what would happen to them when they could work no longer. Many had experienced the difficulties of the unemployed in having to go before the Poor Law guardians of those days, and they became exceedingly apprehensive as to what would be their lot when they could work no longer, and would probably have to go into a workhouse. With knowledge of those facts, I am very pleased today to be a Member of this House who is helping my right hon. Friend to place the coping stone on his various social Measures. I am delighted that the old Poor Law system is passing out. The method of approach, the attitude of mind, has completely changed. Many old folks, and younger ones, too, who became applicants for assistance under the old Poor Law system, were regarded as if they were re-


sponsible for the poverty and adversity which had overtaken them. Many reverend gentlemen, and those connected with Christian churches, assumed that many of these people were endowed with a double dose of original sin. Thank God we have grown out of that attitude of mind, that we can look forward to something more human and in keeping with Christian ethics. I congratulate the Government on having brought forward this Measure, and I shall be glad—although I hope it will not be necessary—to take part in supporting it in its further stages in Committee and in the House.
I would like to point out that the Memorandum accompanying the Bill is exceedingly helpful, because it directs our thought and attention to what I consider to be a most important matter. I want to commend the Ministers responsible for the Bill on their production of this Memorandum. These Memoranda are becoming more permanent, and Members of the House are, I hope, becoming more appreciative of their value and assistance.
I am pleased to find that we are at last approaching this subject from the point of view of making it a national, and not a local, charge. For far too long local authorities have been compelled to shoulder the burden of supporting the poor. At the time the Poor Law Commission reported, the poor were keeping the poor, especially in the poorer areas. We are glad that we have passed from that stage, and that the State will now shoulder its responsibility. In very few cases are individuals responsible for their poverty; in the main they are the victims of a bad social order. I also appreciate the Minister's attempt to bring the personal touch into the administrative Clauses of this Bill. There are to be advisory committees, which is all to the good. These committees will bring a local touch into the Measure, and, what is more important, will enable the Minister to be aware that there are differences, personal and geographical, in various districts. These are matters which must receive the attention of these committees. Another very important point about the local machinery will be the appeal tribunals. If applicants feel that they are not getting a square deal, or a sufficient grant to enable them to keep themselves in reasonable comfort, they will have the

opportunity of appearing before an appeal tribunal.
I am delighted that the Minister has inserted in the Bill provisions whereby the local and personal touch can be given to its administration. I welcome the im provement that has been effected in regard to the Determination of Needs Act. Regulations arising from that Act will be laid upon the Table of both Houses, and we shall see the precise type and form of those recommended. The House will have opportunities of improving on them. No one can say this Bill is being administered by an autocracy from head quarters. The provision in regard to capital in the means test is again an improvement. Residential accommodation for the aged, people is a thing that this House has discussed on many occasions. I welcome the acceptance of the principle. I welcome the statement made by the Minister that he has no desire to have large residential buildings, but that they shall be kept down to a reasonable size. That will be welcomed by all enlightened Members.
I would prefer to see something like the system that has been adopted in Dorchester for the aged agricultural workers. They can take their meals in a communal dining-room or in their personal apartment. What is of great assistance is the recreational facilities afforded by a large common room adjoining a number of separate apartments. I would commend that to the consideration of the Minister. I have seen it, and I feel very pleased with it. Something like that would help to inspire the minds and create interest among those who have been accustomed to factories and workshops. They would not feel isolated. The Minister's suggestion that the aged people be permitted to keep a little pocket money is a delightful idea. It will be supported by every enlightened man and woman throughout the country. I know of nothing worse than the old system by which the aged men or woman were deprived of spending money. To have something they can use in their own personal way is one of the delights which will be appreciated by all. I commend the Bill to the House. This can really be said to be a great day in the history of Parliament. The death of the Poor Law has been long overdue. I welcome its demise.

54 p.m.

Mr. Frank Byers: I feel that the principles of this Bill must be accepted by every progressive person in this House. I do not propose to follow the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) in what I thought, in the beginning of his speech, was a grudging tribute to the introduction of this Measure though he tried to make up for it in the latter parts. I appreciate the embarrassment which he must find in a social security Debate taking place in the House, in view of the record which the Conservative Party has in these matters. This goes back to the foundations of social security in the time of Asquith and Lloyd George. I believe that if there had been a progressive Government in the years between the wars, this Bill would now have been on the Statute Book for many years. The Government are to be congratulated on bringing forward this great Measure of reform which rounds off the social security Measures which so many of us wanted to see on the Statute Book. Tributes have already been paid. Let us pay a tribute to the author of the Beveridge Report for the great work he did in those war years.
We have established only the framework and the machinery. The humane, sympathetic administration of our social benefits is a matter which has to be ever present to our minds. There are very few points I want to make. I think detailed criticisms are far better left to the Committee stage. It is not only the size of the benefit which is important; it is just as important, and, in some cases, more important, that the benefit should be paid immediately in urgent cases. I hope those who administer this scheme will tell the officers of the Assistance Board that it is their duty, in urgent cases, to move with the maximum possible speed. If they use their own discretion in these matters, no person with sympathy or humane feelings will ever say they have been too quick off the mark.
I am glad the Government have introduced the recommendation of the Beveridge Report, that all these draft regulations should be submitted to the House of Commons and another place, in order that debate may take place upon them before they are presented in their final form. They are matters which

require not only debate, but proper advertising to the people who are going to benefit. In these Debates we shall be able to give the necessary publicity to the changes being made from time to time. In dealing with the regulations, could the Government give more indication, not as regards resources, but the determination of need? Is it going to be based on a subsistence level? If it is, is a genuine cost-of-living index going to be taken? Are people going to be given a really square deal in this matter so that they can live, I will not say in luxury, but in relative comfort; and the sort of poverty which has occurred in the past be removed?
There are 450,000 widows under the age of 60 drawing 10s. a week. Some of them are able and willing to work, but there are some—and I have some in my constituency—who are able to work, but cannot find work. Those people are still living on 10s. a week. They pay 3s. 6d. rent and rates, and that leaves a small sum on which to try to keep going. When I have said to them that I would see what could be done in the way of National Assistance, they have said, "No, we do not want to go on the parish." I would like to know whether in cases like that, far out in the rural districts, where there is no possibility of these people—some aged 57—transferring their homes or getting jobs, there is any possibility of their being helped? I agree with the Minister of Health that we should have these residential hotels or clubs. That would be a tremendous stride forward. If only we can break down the old idea of an institution, I believe there is tremendous scope for development along these lines. Has any provision been made in the housing target for the 130,000 to 140,000 houses needed? In general, I want, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, to give our full support to this Bill and to congratulate the Government on having introduced it at this time.

5.10 p.m.

Mrs. Braddock: On behalf of all my constituents, and on behalf of those people in Liverpool who for the past 40 years have been compelled to apply to either Poor Law or public assistance authorities for maintenance, I welcome this Bill. I am not an envious sort of person, but I envy today the opportunity which the Minister had of


moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I would very much like to have had that opportunity. I feel that he presented the Bill with a calmness which he did not feel. I would not have been able to present it in that way. I think of what we are repealing more than of what we are proposing, and I think that this Bill should not pass its Second Reading without our placing on record the difficulties which people in this country have had to face, particularly since 1921.
I was proud to take part in the unemployed demonstrations and organisation in Liverpool in 1921 and onwards, because, having won the war and having been promised a country fit for heroes to live in, we discovered that one in five of the population of 855,000 in Liverpool was compelled, within a very short time of being demobilised from the Forces, to apply for relief from the local Poor Law authorities. Under the 1911 Act, relief had to be paid mostly in kind—very little in cash. Some of it was paid in cash in Liverpool—the Toxteth board of guardians paid some in cash—but it was mostly paid in kind While I was listening to the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), floundering in difficulties, I realised that he had no conception of what he was talking about, or what it meant to repeal the things which this Bill sets out to repeal. I was sorry for him from that point of view. There are thousands of people in this country who will welcome this Bill because they will feel that they will never again have to apply to people on Poor Law committees, boards of guardians or public assistance committees, and prove that they are destitute. I am pleased to see that the word "destitution" does not exist in the Bill. That word has been a very sore point for a long time, because it meant payment below the rates and wages paid to the industrial workers, and it tended to reduce continually the standard of living of those who were compelled to apply for Poor Law relief.
I am proud to be part of the Liverpool organisation. When we are paying tribute to the people who have done things, I want to pay tribute to a person who is not known nationally and who has never had his praises sung, but who, nevertheless, was a hero to the destitute people in Liverpool.
I am referred to the Poor Law officer in Liverpool, a man known as George Evans, who, for almost two years, fought the Ministry of a Tory Government and paid fully in cash relief to those who had to apply for assistance in Liverpool. In times likes this, I think that we ought to pay our tribute to people who have had the courage of their convictions—officials of local authorities or officials of the Government. I take the opportunity now of paying this tribute to George Evans for establishing, for the first time in this country, in 1921, in spite of the fact that it was illegal to do so, payment of relief fully in cash to those people who were destitute.
When we talk about queues at the present time, we do not realise what queues used to be like. Let us remember the queues outside the Poor Law relief offices, the destitute people, badly clothed, badly shod, lining up with their prams—many of the men lining up with the kit-bags which they had carried during the 1914–18 war—for their week's rations of black treacle and bread. Bread was issued once a week—and we know what bread is, even in the best of times, when it has been kept for a week. These are the things that we are repealing. These are the things we are wiping from the face of this country, and I am pleased to be associated with a Socialist Government which is doing this, because I know that a Tory Government would never have had the courage, or even the ambition, to do anything of the kind. It has always been useful for them to have a large crowd of people destitute, because they could be used to reduce the standard of living and the wages of the people who were fortunate enough to be working.
There is another important matter in connection with the scales of relief that were paid and the amounts that are to be paid under the new regulations. When the scale was established during the 1914–18 war for the Poor Law payment, it was 10s. a week. In the first instance, in 1921, 10s. a week was considered sufficient to maintain a destitute person. That was gradually increased, and in 1931, when we had a financial crisis similar to that which we have today, the only way the Tory Party could find to deal with the situation was to inflict a 10 per cent. reduction on everybody, including those people who were drawing the destitution scale of assistance. In


Liverpool, where we have never had stable industries and never had permanent employment—it has always been a question, in the main, of casual labour—and where there have always been large numbers of unemployed, and where we still have large numbers of unemployed, the position has always been, so far as my party is concerned, that we have had the utmost difficulty and a struggle to establish some decent scales of assistance for those unable to maintain themselves.
The Bill covers many aspects. Another thing which I am pleased to see in it is the new method suggested for dealing with old people who have toiled as long as they possibly could, and have given of their best to the industrial and general welfare of the country. When they have been unable to look after themselves, it has just been nobody's business to see that they were properly cared for. Even when the old age pension was raised to 26s. it did not relieve the destitution of many aged people who had no one on whom to depend but themselves. It greatly assisted those who were able to live with relatives, but not those who found themselves compelled out of their 26s. to look after themselves, to pay rent and to find some one to do their washing and cleaning. These aged people like their liberty and they do not like to go into institutions. They love to live among their fellow creatures, but it is usually the oldest room in the house which is offered to them. We have thousands of them in Liverpool living in filthy back rooms, struggling as best they can, having to do their own queuing for the amount of rations which they are allowed, and suffering great hardships on 26s. a week. I do not take the same view as the Minister about the Assistance Board. I do not think the Assistance Board is any better than the old board of guardians or the public assistance committee, because in many instances those in receipt of 26s. as an old age pension are being paid by the Assistance Board the miserable amount of 6d. in addition to the 26s. that they get.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): So far as that point is concerned, I think it ought to be made perfectly clear that when the Minister of National Insurance was responsible for raising the amount of pension to 26s. a week, he said

that no person should be a penny worse off even if they had only 6d. extra, and that is why some persons are being paid the 6d.

Mrs. Braddock: I quite agree with the Parliamentary Secretary, and that is what I am grumbling about. They are no worse off,' but they are in exactly the same position as they were before, because when they were drawing 10s. a week they got 16s. 6d. from the Assistance Board. When the money went up to 26s. the Assistance Board very courteously gave them a book in which there were weekly dockets for the payment of 6d. What I am saying is that in the new regulations which have to be passed and in the Clauses of this Bill, which deal with old people who are receiving financial benefits from the State, we have to give very careful consideration to the fact that there are two sets of old people. There are those people who are able to live with their sons, daughters or other relatives and who, through being looked after, can quite obviously get special comforts and conditions, and they have no rent to pay. On the other hand, there are those who are completely alone. They do not want to go into institutions, and they have many expenses. In some instances, too, they do not have the opportunity to go into institutions because the institutions are completely full of old people. In making the new regulations, let us remember there are these two sets of old people and let us make the regulations in such a way as to be certain that those aged people who are living on their own, and who have a lot of commitments because they are living on their own, are given ample attention in order that they may exist decently as long as they live.
I am delighted with the arrangements that have been made for old people in hostels. In the area which I represent, we have a number of places into which old people are taken. They are unable to look after themselves, and though strenuous steps have been taken and every good will has been shown on the part of those who are responsible for the treatment of old people in these places, it has to be said that places which were built as workhouses, cannot be suitable for the altered circumstances of old people, nor can those places provide something which is different from what was provided in the past.
I am particularly glad that I have had a part in this Bill, as a Member of the party responsible for it. I am very bitter about what has happened in the past to those people who found themselves in need of assistance. I am bitter because I know what has happened to them. I am bitter because I have been part of them. I have sat on a committee where public assistance had to be given out, and it has been a horrifying experience to me when people have come in and asked for a pair of boots and have had to stand in a corner and show the soles of their boots before another pair could be given to them. Some of the most difficult situations I have known have arisen in connection with clothing, because the regulations of the Poor Law were such that a person had to be destitute, not only from the point of view of cash, but also from the point of view of clothing before he or she was permitted to receive assistance. I have been in a committee where the chairman, who was not of my party, persisted—and I protested—in seeing the underclothing of old people before the committee was prepared to give an order that new underclothing should be supplied. These things remain with us. We remember them.
I remember baton charges in Liverpool, when the unemployed were demonstrating in order to get some decent assistance from the country they fought for and from the country from which they expected a square deal. It is for the sake of those people that I am glad today, because they have very bitter memories of what the Poor Law and public assistance actually meant. Those who have been in touch with, and those who have accepted, public assistance or Poor Law know what I mean. People objected to, and stayed away as long as they could from, public assistance or charity. I am pleased that today we are ending that. We are realising and accepting the principle that anybody who is unable to look after himself or herself, for one reason or another, becomes a complete charge on the State, and the State takes responsibility for seeing that he or she gets the very best consideration and attention.
I end where I started. I know how many people in my area have looked forward to this Measure ever since 1921. I have looked forward to the time when the Poor Law would be abolished ever since 1906, when I had my very first recollection

of people starving. I was taken, at the age of seven, into the central area of Liverpool where the women of the Socialist movement, even then, were looking after people who were in poverty. They used to make soup every day and take it down to the central area of the city in a van and distribute it, and a piece of bread, to those who were hungry and waiting for it at a cost of a farthing a bowl. I have always remembered since then the terrible tragedy and horror on the faces of those in the queue when the soup finished and there was no more to be sold.
I am glad that I have lived to see this day and to have had a share in the agitation—because agitation it had to be until this Government came into power—for a new system, doing away with the need for people crying out that they were destitute, and having to prove it before they were given assistance in order to continue living in a country which was able to produce wealth over and above any other country in the world. I welcome the Bill. I hope that in Committee the Minister will be able to agree to one or two Amendments. There is one Clause particularly which I should like to see amended. That Clause makes it necessary for the Assistance Board to present its accounts to this House only once a year, so that only once a year shall we have the opportunity of discussing the progress of this scheme. I hope that that can be amended and ways found under the Bill whereby we can discuss the progress of the scheme, because in its early stages the scheme will have to be watched very carefully. I hope that the working class movement will be able now to forget the horrors of the past in the joy of realising that we are living in a country that is going to produce for the benefit of the citizens as a whole.

5.30 p.m.

Sir Harold Webbe: I hope the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) will forgive me if I do not follow in any detail the statements that she has made. I would like to do so, because I know that she speaks from very long experience of local government work, more particularly perhaps in the field with which we are concerned today, and


also because, if she will allow me to say so, I always feel that when she makes remarks which are a little more extravagant than we are ready to accept, she does so because her heart carries away her head. I ask her to believe that good hearts and decent intentions are not the sole prerogative, thank God, of any one political party. There are some of us on this side of the House who have tried to do our little bit in the past towards the development of the social services which are essential to our country and of which we personally are proud.
I must not be tempted to accept the challenge thrown out by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers). He is not here now, but I would like to join issue with him at some time upon the rather provocative statements he has made. I feel that I am within the temper of the Debate in resisting the temptation, because the Minister of Health in his opening speech made what I thought was a notable and very welcome departure from the rather forceful manner in which he has introduced some other Bills with which he has been concerned. He will probably appreciate my own feeling of embarrassment in rising to give general approval to a Bill which removes from local authorities some of the duties with which they have been charged in the past. I hope he will accept my action today as at least evidence of the sincerity of the opposition which I have shown to his other attempts—many of them successful attempts—to raid functions which I believe are properly functions of local government.
I am glad that the Minister resisted the obvious temptation to make a speech of a very different character, which, judging from some of the interruptions that have been made since, might have been better to the liking of some of the—if I may say so without offence—less thoughtful of his supporters behind him. The Minister quite properly paid a tribute to the work which has been done in the past under the Poor Law. To do otherwise would, indeed, be to fail to recognise the historical changes which have brought us, quite logically from locally administered relief to a Bill which transfers some of the most important assistance functions to a central State body.
In the earlier days of public assistance—I do not mean going back to Queen

Elizabeth but in the days immediately preceding and following the industrial revolution—communities were much more isolated than they are now. Industries were much more localised. In consequence, the conditions of life and of living in one area differed widely from those in another, and much more than they do today. It was proper that in those conditions the administration of relief in whatever form to the less fortunate members of society should be the function of purely local bodies.
Times have changed. The conditions which led—I must use the horrible word "destitution" which I join the hon. Lady in condemning—to people being destitute and in need of relief, are much better understood than they were, and the problem is now susceptible of national rather than local treatment in a way in which it was not 50 years ago. Moreover, there is a fact we must all be honest enough to face. In those days, local authorities had not acquired that most vicious of all institutions of local government the party whip. Local authorities were not party-politically divided. We must face the fact that when politics crept into local government, it became most difficult for local authorities to administer relief in cash or kind without being subject to pressure which they did not like and which very few people wanted them to suffer. Therefore, I feel sincerely that this is the proper time—I would even agree with the hon. Lady that the Bill is some years overdue—for the complete transfer to the central government of functions concerned with the direct administration of relief in cash and kind, leaving to local authorities the job of administering the forms of welfare and assistance which are still left to them by the Bill.
To judge from some of the interruptions that came from the other side, and particularly from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), there is a tendency to overlook the importance of Part I of the Bill. In my view, and I am sure the Minister will agree with me, the administration of cash relief is a very important part of the whole business of assistance. I think the Minister will also agree that nothing that we can do to the Bill, and no Amendment that we can propose to it, will make quite certain that this part of the Bill will prove


the success which we all desire it to be. If there is any function of government of which it would be right to say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, it is the handling of what is essentially a human and not an automatic service. The welfare side is left to the local authorities quite properly. I am not sure whether that is in Part II—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): It is actually Part II.

Sir H. Webbe: That is what I meant to say. It relates to the National Assistance Board. The success of that Board in discharging its functions will depend much more upon its administration than upon any provisions which govern its constitution. I do not want to enter in detail into this aspect of the matter, but we ought to have in mind the fundamental difficulties which face any administration, and not least the purely mechanical difficulty of getting the offices to house the staff and the staff to run the scheme. This great function of cash relief must not stop for one moment. It is absolutely essential that it should carry straight on when the transfer of functions takes place from the local authorities to the National Assistance Board. I know the Minister of National Insurance will not think that I am in any way attacking him if I say that it is common knowledge from the postbags of all hon. Members that the National Insurance Department is at the present moment shockingly overworked and overwhelmed, and, to put it quite bluntly, in the most hopeless mess, in many of its actual administrative jobs. It is not an uncommon thing to have serious delays in the delivery of new pension books and so on. I say that not by way of criticism of the Minister, because anybody with practical experience of administration knows what a terrific task he has and the great difficulty there must be in establishing so vast a service in such a short time.
It is vital that before the appointed day under this part of the Bill is fixed it should be made perfectly clear that the complete organisation to handle this function is available and ready to start at a moment's notice without any creaking and without any mistakes. That almost

certainly means taking over from the local authorities the premises they have used for this job and the men they have employed. I have found no paragraph in the Bill about premises though I have no doubt there is one somewhere. What I have found is a paragraph about staffs which repeats the perfectly monstrous position of the corresponding paragraph in the Local Government Bill, which I hope will be dealt with when we get to the Committee stage of that Bill. The provision is that compensation for any local authority staffs who may be displaced by the transfer of functions to the central government shall be paid by the local authority. When these functions passed from the board of guardians to the county councils it was then left to the county council to pay the compensation. Today when they are passing from the county council to the Government it is again left to the county council to pay. That is so monstrous that I am quite certain that the Minister will accept the position that as the Government are putting these people out of jobs, any compensation to which they are properly entitled should be paid by the Government and not left as a charge on the ratepayers. Matters of that kind can be dealt with, and I am sure will be dealt with, before the Bill comes into force. Many other details will no doubt be ironed out in Committee.
There remains, however, the one fundamental difficulty of ensuring that the administration of these money grants by the National Assistance Board shall be humane and not automatic. That point was made by the hon. lady the Member for the Exchange Division and I am quite certain that it is in the minds of all hon. Members. We have had experience on the London County Council of such a transfer from the board of guardians through various stages to that of a published London scale of relief. However much one instructs one's officers to use their discretion, their common sense and the powers that are given to them, there is a fatal tendency for a printed scale to become a fixed scale. Our experience in London was this. In the earlier stages when we did not have a scale carrying the full authority of the council, we felt obliged to give some sort of guidance to the public assistance committee by giving them a scale which had no greater


authority than that it was merely a suggestion or advice from the chairman of the committee. Even at that stage there was a tendency for the whole administration to solidify, and the published scales became fixed scales. That is a very great danger as it is only by the wisest administration that the Minister will be able to make the discretionary powers given to those officers a reality and not merely a sham. It is true that there is an appeals tribunal provided, but that tribunal is, again, an official body and before very long it will be bound by hosts of precedents and decisions and it will probably become more hidebound than the assistance officers themselves.
There remains only one hope and that is in the local advisory committees. There are local advisory committees associated with the assistance boards today. I doubt whether anyone who has served on those committees is satisfied that they are really doing their job. They are not taken sufficiently closely into consultation. They are used much more as a general dumping ground for odd questions of a general character which occur to the assistance officers. They do not get the close personal touch with the applicants which was the one feature of the old Poor Law system which was well worth preserving. Although for some reason or other the Minister of Health did not like to be reminded of it, in 1940 he and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) paid a tribute to the value of close personal contact between the applicants and people who were not officials and were not bound by official rules. I can think of no amendment to the Bill which will secure the continuance of that humane contact and touch. It will be for the Minister by regulation and by the supervision of his officers to encourage and stimulate the discretionary power of his officers and by some means to make greater use of the local advisory committees so that they may be in constant and daily contact with the work the officers are doing and so be in a position to check whether they are using their discretion or relying in 99 per cent. of the cases on the published scales.
I want to say a word about the local authority services. I very much welcome the Minister's statement, particularly in regard to homes for aged persons. There is no doubt that his approach is the

human approach—it is the approach we would all like to see—but again we must remember that the administrative problem that faces local authorities is terrific. The problem of administering groups of isolated homes, each with their own individuality and character, and each containing not more than 20 or 30 people, will be a very big one, and I am not at all sure that it will not be beyond the powers of some of the larger authorities. However, the nearer we get to that ideal the better.
There is one little point that worries me. In the Clause which lays upon the local authorities the responsibility for providing this accommodation, a completely new condition is introduced into the paragraph which deals with temporary accommodation. I do not quite know where we are getting to, but Clause 20 (1, b) reads:
Temporary accommodation for persons who are in urgent need thereof, being need arising in circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen. …
If it only means fire, earthquake, act of God and that kind of thing, well and good, but I am rather afraid of introducing a condition of relief which might involve the local authorities in becoming censors of morals. We know perfectly well that there are people in trouble and bad health who have brought it on themselves, but I do not think that is a question with which the relieving authorities must be concerned. They must deal with facts and not with history. Therefore, I hope we shall be assured at the appropriate time that there is nothing more in this than an attempt to limit the requirements on the local authorities to give temporary assistance.
I wish the Bill contemplated that the responsibility for dealing with casuals should not remain for all time with the local authorities, and I hope that in Committee the Minister will do something about it. If responsibility remains with the local authorities, it will be an odd bit of the administration which is properly completely part and parcel of the work to be handed over to the National Assistance Board, and it would be a mistake if that is left with the local authority, because it is much more in the nature of assistance than of welfare, and I do not find in the Bill any limit on that.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The condition in the Bill is for a maximum period of two years during which the Board can make its own


provision. The local authorities in that respect will act as agents for the Board.

Sir H. Webbe: I thought that the limitation of two years referred to the running of the rehabilitation service, and that the immediate relief of casuals would remain a function of the local authorities even after the two years. However, if I am wrong in that, I am glad, because that is the kind of provision I would like to see in the Bill.
I welcome the Bill. As the Minister has said, it is the coping stone of a series of Bills which have gradually transformed the old type of Poor Law into the new type. However, I do not think we ought to give it a Second Reading without paying a tribute which, so far this afternoon, has only been paid by the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division. We have paid tribute to the big names in the history of Poor Law public relief, but we ought to remember many thousands of others. In the 20 odd years during which it has been my privilege to work on a local authority, I have met many admirable people for whom I have the highest regard and the greatest admiration, but I know of none for whom my admiration is greater than those men and women who have devoted unselfishly their time, their energy and their ability to perhaps the most invidious, and certainly one of the most heartbreaking jobs with which local government is concerned. To them we ought to pay a tribute for ail they have done to bring about the change in mind and in circumstances which now makes this Bill possible, and I hope that, if I happen to be on the Committee, I may help to knock it into an effective Bill for a purpose with which I am sure we all agree.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Carmichael: In common with other hon. Members, I want to pay my tribute to the Ministers responsible for the introduction of this Bill. In some ways I hold a unique position in this regard because I have been associated in a practical way, with the evolution of Poor Law during the last 26 years, and I am proud of the opportunity to be here at the Second Reading of this Bill. I was a very minor official of the local authority in Glasgow when that authority broke

through the existing law and paid the able-bodied in cash instead of kind. I admit my responsibility, and my office did not hold me very long—or I did not hold the office very long; I had political convictions of a kind that apparently were not in keeping with the higher-ups, and I departed. I then found myself in the queue of the recipients and attended at the parish council offices for my weekly allowance. While I have no doubt the people who let the hall, put the text on the wall with very good intentions, it was rather ironical to see the following words right in the front of the hall:
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
One requires to be in a queue of that kind to know the irony of such a sentence. Since then, I have watched a gradual improvement and, although I would like to avoid saying this, I think that politics played a great part in that change. I am perfectly certain that my city was in the forefront in its treatment of the unemployed able-bodied, but that was largely because of the political power and pressure of the party and the people with whom I was associated. Finally, many of us took charge ultimately of the local authority, and in 1929, with the passing of the Local Government Act, we again made a great jump forward in the treatment of the poor of the great cities and, for many years after that, I was intimately associated with that movement.
I came here with a little fear about this Bill. Having read it, I have to be perfectly honest and say that it is far superior to anything I had expected. I have been conservative in my regard for the local authority; I have always had the feeling that the local authority could handle the problem much better than advisory councils. I am not completely converted to the advisory councils yet. The Poor Law cannot be broken up merely by the passing of legislation; it can only be broken up by a complete change in the approach to the people who are compelled to apply for aid. I do not know any immediate solution but, judging from my own city alone, I say that the treatment of the people was better under the local authority than under the Assistance Board. That is my reading of it from practical, day-to-day experience, and I must mention it.
One point may come out of that, the right of a member of the local authority to be more intimately connected with the advisory council. I agree with the hon. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) that there is a tendency for the person selected for a job to be less intimately concerned with that work than the person elected to the post. I hope that will be noted, and that local government people may nave the opportunity of serving. The National Assistance Board is the most important. If this is to be a new National Board—not the Assistance Board redesignated but a new Board known as the National Assistance Board—I hope it will be possible to have at least one representative from Scotland on it, because our country is sufficiently important to merit some little recognition.

Mr. J. Griffiths: indicated assent.

Mr. Carmichael: Regarding that administration, I would ask one question on the point that the local officer can act with speed in cases of urgent demand. I hope we are quite clear as to what is meant by that, because, under the old public assistance and parish councils, there was a 24-hours' service and the offices were open constantly. In my view that is essential now because, as the Minister stated in presenting the Bill, there may be fires and all kinds of difficulties, and there must be people on the spot. A further point regarding administration is that payment can be made in cash and in kind. For many years we opposed any payment in kind because we were afraid that the officers would do as they did in earlier days -they would supply the bread, the butter, the margarine and so on, and we were left as paupers in the worst possible sense.
I think there is a case for payment in kind, and my experience of public assistance in contrast to the Public Assistance Board, bears that out. The public assistance committee paid in cash, but, when people wanted clothing, they provided clothing, whereas when people applied to the Assistance Board they were paid in cash, and if they made an extra plea for clothing, they were given an extra £2, or £3, to try to get clothing. In many cases they were offered the opportunity of having cash, by which they could only buy second-hand clothing.
In Glasgow the local authorities developed a very big establishment for the supply of relief other than cash where there were all kinds of clothing for all types of persons. I suggest that it would be worth while the Minister considering the advisability of giving the larger burghs and towns the right to handle cases of that kind directly. If they require assistance by way of clothing and things, other than payment by cash, let people make application to the Assistance Board. Government auditors look after the finances of local authorities, and there would be no harm in the local authority handling business of that kind while the Government accepted financial responsibility. The most important factor in economy is the ability of a local authority to buy by bulk purchase over a large area, and for a large number of people.
A person who is dissatisfied with an officer's finding, can appeal to the committee; could we have an appeal to the umpire as well as to the committee? Too often people on appeal committees tend to take the official point of view. I am not saying this in any adverse sense. The official has all the knowledge at his fingertips, and is more competent and able to present a case to the committee as against the applicant, and the tendency is always in the direction of the official being upheld. I think there is a case for an opportunity of appeal to the umpire
There is an idea that people can be directed to training centres. I have no doubt that if I looked up old copies of HANSARD I could find hon. Members now on this side of the House who made strenuous attacks on the training centres and work centres. I see a danger in this Bill. I do not say that it was put in for the purpose, but if there were a serious period of unemployment and people exhausted their industrial benefits, there would be the grave possibility that they would require to apply to the Assistance Board, and there would then be the tendency to direct them to training centres. I am a little doubtful about these training centres, as I have always held the view that if society, through Government agencies, cannot find work during a period of depression, it is not right to penalise people by putting square pegs into round holes. I would like that point looked into, and to have more information about training centres.
After all, a very good case can be made out for the vagrant. He is a man who does not trouble us very often. In the past he decided that in the winter months he could not roam the country in the same way as he did in the summer, and he made for the workhouse, but he always worked there. We cannot just build society by dictation. Last week some hon. Members opposite tried to be the pioneers in protecting people from slavery. Let me show how, for ages, the city to which I belong has been associated with pioneering in this direction. In Glasgow we have some of the finest homes in the country. I am afraid of the "20 to 30" in the big towns, but I think these homes can be made such that towns can be very proud of possessing them. In Glasgow now there is a waiting list and the homes cannot be compared in any way with the workhouses of the past. People go to them with a great deal of pleasure because they can have independence with all the advantages of co-operation, even in the hour of illness.
I hope this Measure, if amended, will be amended merely to advance it towards aiding the human family to greater happiness. I was very glad to hear the commendations of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Junior Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieutenant-Colonel Elliot). At first I felt a little fear because the right hon. Gentleman the Senior Member (Sir J. Anderson) has been telling us ever since I came into this House that we should hold back many of these Measures, as this was not an opportune time for them. I hope there is no serious quarrel between them, but, if there is, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Junior Member can be assured of my encouragement.

6.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: Whilst the general purpose of this Bill merits our approval, there are a number of points which need to be clarified, and one or two provisions which may with advantage be amended when we reach the Committee stage. One of the most important parts of the Bill is that which deals with the setting up of a single authority to administer cash grants. I agree in principle that it is wise there should be one authority deal-

ing with these monetary payments. I remember that in 1937, when I became chairman of the Public Assistance Committee in Edinburgh, one of the first problems with which I had to deal was discontent, aroused quite legitimately owing to the fact that there were two scales of payment in the city, one by the public assistance committee and one by the Assistance Board. It was possible, and it happened, that families in exactly the same economic circumstances—in adjacent houses, or "stairs" as we call them in Scotland—were receiving different grants from those two authorities. We overcame the difficulty by assimilating the public assistance scales to those of the Assistance Board, but adding the important proviso that the public assistance officer should have discretionary powers, over and above the scales, to deal with special cases, of which there were bound to be a considerable number. It is essential that there should be a measure of flexibility. We in Scotland have always attached great importance to that in the administration of relief. I am anxious lest under the terms of this Bill there may be too great an urge to attain complete uniformity of treatment, and that insufficient discretionary powers are left to the officers of the board to deal with cases of particular difficulty.
The public assistance officer, or to give him his statutory title, the inspector of the poor, is liable under the Act of 1845, to have criminal proceedings taken against" him if he fails to carry out his duties. That means that there is a definite individual responsible for the relief of distress, and in the event of anything going wrong, or of any person suffering death or injury, it would be possible to bring that official before the courts. That is a wise provision, because it is a safeguard for the applicant. It does not appear to me that there is any such provision in this Bill. Clause 4 imposes the duty of giving assistance upon the National Assistance Board and Clause 8 deals specifically with the granting of monetary assistance, but I cannot find any Clause in the Bill which makes any particular official or servant of the National Assistance Board liable for failure to carry out these statutory duties. I would ask the Minister of National Insurance and the Secretary of State for Scotland to look into this point, which is one of some substance, because under the existing law in Scotland, at any rate,


people who are not able to fend for themselves are safeguarded by the terms of the parent Act.
The question of personal contact between applicants and the new National Assistance Board has been touched upon by a number of hon. Members. I would only add my voice to theirs, and say that one of the great weaknesses of any central authority is the loss of personal contact. As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has said, that very point was commented upon by the present Minister of Health and by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) during the Debates on the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940. Today, under the existing system, the staff of the public assistance officer are in close touch with the people who require aid, and visit their homes and find out and relieve their needs. I trust that this duty will also fall on the officials of the National Assistance Board, but I am a little apprehensive that under the new set-up there may be a widening of the gulf between applicants and those engaged in the administration of the scheme. I would make the constructive suggestion that the responsible Ministers should consider appointing members of existing public assistance staffs to the local offices of the new National Assistance Board. Furthermore, in amplification on what the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) said, when he referred to the desirability of appointing one representative from Scotland to the National Assistance Board, I would suggest that a public assistance officer of standing in one of our populous areas would be an admirable person to fill that post. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear that in mind.
I wish to say a word on the subject of emergency arrangements, which are mentioned in Clauses 11 and 24 of the Bill. To take the most simple case, which happens almost every day in any big city, a tramp or some penniless wayfarer descends upon the town. He is directed to the offices of the public assistance department, where, certainly in Edinburgh and probably in all large towns, there is a 24-hour service, and the officer on duty hands him a voucher or a cash grant to obtain a meal and arranges for his accommoda-

tion in a lodging house or local institution. I am not clear what is to happen to a man of this category under the Bill. Is it intended that he should be directed to the local office of the National Assistance Board? If so, the Board's officers will require to have a 24-hour service, because there are obviously people who will arrive at any hour of the day or night. If that is not intended, such a person, on entering a town, will have to go, as at present, to the public assistance department, and would it be competent, in this event, for the public assistance department to provide him with emergency relief in kind and money as well as accommodation, because as I read the Bill it would not be competent for relief either in cash or kind to be given by the servants of the local authority? This point is not quite clear, and the Minister might perhaps refer to it in his reply.
One hon. Member has referred to the problem of some local disaster such as a flood, fire or explosion which would render people homeless for a temporary period. As I understand it, Clause 20 (1, b) of the Bill imposes the duty of looking after people in that category upon the local authority, but I am not clear as to whether the function of the local authority would extend to the replacement of personal effects. For example, if there was a fire, people's clothing might be lost, and some emergency clothes would have to be provided, and possibly financial assistance. It seems to me that under the Bill the National Assistance Board would have to fulfil those two duties, and not the local authority. Perhaps that point could be explained. At all events, it is quite clear that close liaison would be required between the local officials of the National Assistance Board and the appropriate officials of the local authority.
There is another matter which I will develop in detail in Committee, if I am fortunate enough to be placed on the Standing Committee, but I cannot overlook it altogether on the Second Reading Debate. It is, what is to be the fate of the present local government employees who may be displaced as a result of this Bill coming into operation, more particularly the officials of the public assistance department? My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities mentioned that he had received some communication from the city of


Glasgow on this subject. The only Clause of the Bill which appears to deal with this matter is Clause 57. Frankly, I do not think that that Clause is by any means watertight as regards payment of compensation. I trust that it will be strengthened during the later stages of the Bill. One point which I would emphasise to the Secretary of State for Scotland is that there is no compensation for loss of office or status in the case of the inspectors of the poor, who are in a special position. These officers in Scotland are appointed, if I may quote the proper Latin phraseology, "ad vitam aut culpam" "for fife if free from blame," under the terms of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845. It seems unfortunate that no suitable provision has been made for them in view of the onerous duties and responsibilities they bear. I hope that special terms will be included in the Bill later to deal with this small but nevertheless important section of senior local government officials upon whom Parliament has put important and difficult functions in the past.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers) is no longer with us. He made reference, in a disparaging manner, to the record of my party in the past. I would merely remind him that it was a great Tory, Lord Shaftesbury, who, against the opposition of the Radical mill owners of the day, introduced the early factory legislation in this country. Then, there was the great Joseph Chamberlain, who was one of the earliest people to agitate for old age pensions, and we are proud of the record of his son, Neville Chamberlain, in placing upon the Statute Book the Widows' Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925.

6.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): It is a great privilege to be associated with the presentation of a Bill of this kind. It is impossible on a day such as this not to cast our minds back to the past. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), and one or two other hon. Members, have done that in a controversial manner although the right hon. and gallant Gentleman started his speech by complimenting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health

on being uncontroversial. It was a great pity that he tried to score points of that nature. I do not propose to follow that example. My memories on this subject go back for 40 years At that time Sidney Webb toured the country in a campaign for the abolition of the Poor Law. It seems strange on looking back that it has taken 40 years to accomplish that, and that this Bill is being presented within a few days of the passing of Sidney Webb. It is a pity that he did not live for another two or three weeks in order to see the culmination of the campaign. The success of the campaign is due largely to the development of the social conscience. I think that even the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friends Would not deny that a great deal of that social conscience was stimulated by the agitation of Keir Hardie and others who brought to the notice of the House of Commons and the country the condition of the poor. Those great pioneers, John Burns, Bernard Shaw, and others who led the demonstrations of the poor in London, all played a part in bringing to the attention of the comfortable in life the condition of those who, in Jack London's phrase, were, "the people of the abyss."
The history of the Poor Law goes back to the reign of Queen Elizabeth. I was most interested to hear my right hon.. Friend the Minister of Health describe some of the things which happened in those days. Curiously enough, I have looked up some of our Scottish records. If I might translate from their rather archaic language, they show that the penalties for being poor in Scotland were even more severe and ferocious than those in England. In the 1605 Statute in Scotland it was laid down that:
All masterful and strong beggars may be taken by any man and, being brought to any sheriff or magistrate, can get them declared as masterful beggars and may set his burning iron upon them and retain them as slaves.
The branding of the poor with hot irons was not confined to Scotland; but certainly it is on our records as one of the treatments for the poor. Looking back, it is obvious that poverty became associated with crime. That arose very largely from the taking over of the monasteries which deprived the Church of the ability to keep the poor. Thousands upon thousands of people were thrown on to the roads and many of them, including ex-soldiers, took the law into their own


hands. In the reign of Henry VIII, 72,000 people were executed for theft. Executions went on at this rate into the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Eventually it was discovered, as Baggage wrote nearly two centuries later, that:
The usual restraints which are sufficient for the well fed are often useless in checking the demands of hungry stomachs.
During this period the poor were presumed guilty, and they had to prove their innocence. It was from that point that we had to start to reach the point today that, as embodied in this Bill, the poor are presumed innocent until the State proves them guilty. We establish in this Bill one of the great slogans or ambitions of the early days of our movement—the establishment of work or maintenance in this country as the moral principle governing the treatment of people who are in need. Under this Measure, those who get assistance get it without humiliation or abuse. Perhaps the greatest thing about the Bill is that it removes from the treatment of people who are hard hit in life the humiliation which accompanied a great deal of charity in the past. I think that the greatest injury done to the poor in the past was not the fact that they were deprived of food or nourishment, but that they were deprived of their self-respect. The destruction of the dignity of man was the greatest crime against the poor in days gone by. Therefore, charity today for the first time takes on all its Christian virtues. It ceases to be only an insurance against lawlessness.
This Bill wipes out poverty as we knew it, and any shame attached to need. The able-bodied become the business of the Minister of Labour, the sick become the responsibility of myself and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health under the National Health Service. Those who are in need become the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance under the National Assistance scheme. In this scheme Scotland is to be given an office of its own, a Scottish Office of the Assistance Board which will work from Edinburgh with a senior officer responsible for the service. I would like to pay tribute to the humane way in which the Assistance Board in Edinburgh has worked. I have had a great deal of experience connected with people in my own constituency. The Assistance Board has gradually become known as a friend to

old age pensioners who look to the officers as friends and helpers. They come in as welcome visitors instead of being regarded as the "nosey-parker" type associated with the early days of Bumbledom.
Also, I would like to pay tribute to the administration of local public assistance in Scotland. It is true that in all these things it is the change of spirit that matters more than the change of form. There is no question that in the last 20 or 30 years there has been a gradual change in the whole attitude of the administration of relief. Even in the case of public assistance, only the older people remember the horror that was attached to receiving help from the community. Those of us who lived before the last war remember the horror with which people regarded the necessity of having to appeal to the parish or to the Poor Law. Many of them would rather have died than have done that. Any number of people in this country have starved rather than accept the kind of assistance offered by the old Poor Law. It is interesting to note that before supplementary pensions were introduced 250,000 people were receiving Poor Law relief. When supplementary pensions came in, with dignity attached to them, another 750,000 old people were found who were equally in need when compared with the 250,000 but who would not go to the Poor Law. They applied for the supplementary pensions, and I am happy to have played a part in the passage of that Act. That proves quite clearly that it was the humiliation attached to public assistance that caused people to go without what they required and which, in many cases, led to disaster and cost the country far more in the long run.
There are in Scotland today 89,000 people including dependants, receiving outdoor relief. Of those, over 8,000 are receiving only medical relief, and they pass now into the Health Service scheme. The balance of some 81,000 will go to my right hon. Friend and the National Assistance Board to receive outdoor cash assistance. There are 5,800 receiving blind domiciliary assistance who will also go over to the National Assistance Board. Like the Minister of Health, I would like to pay tribute to the way in which assistance to the blind has been built up. The experience gained in helping the blind will guide us in helping other people who


are crippled or incapacitated. I think it is the first time that many of the people who have been incapacitated by being crippled have received recognition in a Bill as being worthy of dignified relief and not having to apply to the Poor Law. Some 2,560 of our cases are tuberculosis cases, and they will, of course, where they are in hospital, pass to be dealt with by the Minister of Health, while those who are being assisted will pass to the Minister of National Insurance.
We have 7,100 homeless children, and they are boarded out in institutions or with families. I have had some little experience of this system in Scotland, and it is really a remarkable experiment in which people in the Highlands and other parts of Scotland have accepted these homeless children—who were homeless for various reasons—and have brought them up with their own children, lavishing love and care upon them, until some of these children have gone out into the world and have distinguished themselves as a result. I feel certain that, so far as the children are concerned, when the new Bill is introduced setting up the arrangements for the care of children, that experiment will prove a valuable guide to the best way of helping the unfortunate children of the future.
The duties of local authorities under the Bill concern the more intimate side of welfare work and the provision of residential accommodation for old people and others. This will eventually involve the abolition of what we used to call the "mixed" poorhouse, where medical services and Poor Law services were mixed up. These will be separated in future. We have 53 major institutions in Scotland, some of them over 100 years old, and, of course, the ultimate destination of these places is the scrap-heap. We hope to develop the experiment which was referred to by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), of the Crookston Homes, which show what can be done in getting away from institutional methods, and the housing experiment carried out at Clydebank, which has also given us other ideas. I hope that, in future, we will not establish the principle of separating the old people from the rest of the community. Old people do not want to be isolated from their friends, and they live longer and happier if they see

children and young life around them than they do when separated into groups of old people who may not have very much patience with each other. Young people provide old people with life, and the more we retain them as members of the community the better it will be both for them and for us. Of the 6,700 people in mixed poorhouses in Scotland, 2,700 are sick, and 700 are mental cases, which will go to the hospital service. Another 270 are children in the poorhouses, and they will go to the new service for child care. The further 3,000 are old and incapacitated people who will have to be provided for and given attention.
The Scottish Housing Acts provide a very generous subsidy for building houses for old people, but, in this Bill, this service will go further and will provide houses, plus amenities and comforts. These amenities may be tobacco, clothing, wireless and other things that make a habitation into a home. This House will part with this Bill with the feeling that it is opening a new era in history, or, perhaps, putting the seal on a new era that had already opened, because of the fact that this Bill is passing this House without any serious controversy whatever.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in his criticisms, raised the point about the local authorities not being consulted. All I can say is that Glasgow has not complained to me about not being consulted, and why Glasgow, in every case, should give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman its complaints I cannot understand.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This is rather a reflection on Glasgow. The letter that was sent to me went also to every Glasgow Member, and I am perfectly willing to give the right hon. Gentleman a copy. It was not a complaint made solely to me, but to all the representatives of the city.

Mr. Carmichael: I think we can blame Glasgow to some extent, in this matter, because the Glasgow Public Assistance Committee considered this Bill in very great detail, but I think there was a break between the Committee dealing with it and the Parliamentary Bills Committee. I think that the fault was partly due to the Parliamentary Bills Committee.

Mr. Woodburn: I thought my predecessor was pretty good in consulting the local authorities on the aspects of this


Bill, and I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the practice has not changed since he was in office. There never was a Bill introduced without the local authorities being consulted in the fullest and best way possible.
A great many of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton are points which are not peculiar to Scotland, but points of principle which cover the whole country. The Minister for National Insurance will wind up the Debate, and so there is no particular point in duplicating these explanations and possibly depriving some hon. Members of the opportunity of speaking. I would like to say this about the inspectors of the poor. It it quite true that the old law made it a penal offence for an inspector of the poor not to relieve a person coming for relief. The House will be happy to know that we have not discovered any inspectors of the poor whose actions caused that penalty to be applied. We are putting on their counterparts in this Bill a duty which some of them will do out of Christian charity and kindness of heart, and they will be as enthusiastic in working this Bill as I hope the House will be in passing it.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I think the House will agree that there is very little difference in approach to this Bill, but the truth is that what is going to matter is not so much what is in the Bill as the way in which it is applied. I welcome very much the right hon. Gentleman's expression of hope that this Bill will wipe out any shame that is attached to need, but it will do so only if the way in which its terms are carried out is sufficiently flexible. There are two points on which I would like to emphasise this need for flexibility.
The first is the case of men who are out of work and who have passed out of their six months' benefit period, but who are still not in a position to maintain their wives and families. This Bill, on paper, at any rate, extends to them a new hope, and that is very much to the good. They can go into training centres—although the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) does not like training centres—and, no doubt, they can also be placed

in jobs. The sort of flexibility the need for which I would emphasise is that, concurrently with this Bill, it is really necessary that they should go into jobs or start their training long before the six months' period is exhausted and; at the same time, the two Ministries responsible for putting them into those jobs should see that they have an opportunity of returning to their original trades. Flexibility in application in that direction is very essential.
The second way in which flexibility is necessary has already been referred to, but I would like to put it from a different angle. At the present time, when application is made for outdoor relief, or, indeed, for assistance, from what have now come to be known as the welfare officers of local authorities, the applicant goes into a comfortable room, sits in a comfortable chair at his ease, and puts his case. I hope that, when replying, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of National Insurance will assure the House that those conditions are still going to apply because, if the applicant for assistance is to go into a draughty room, stand at a counter with a long queue of other applicants behind him, and apply for assistance in public, then this Bill will certainly not fulfil the "great expectations"—I think that is an appropriate phrase to use—which we all entertain of it.
At the present time, welfare officers have a great deal of latitude. They work on guidance rules, and not on cut-and-dried regulations. Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an indication in what way he anticipates that the regulations will be framed? Is there to be that same kind of latitude, because that is extraordinarily important? Can he also tell us exactly what are to be the lines on which his local officers will work with regard to the making of immediate payments, because, in the matter of granting assistance, speed is often the very essence of the problem. That is why, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton said, it is necessary to have a 24-hour service. I think it will be generally agreed that many local authorities give the widest latitude to their welfare officers at the present time. In fact, I have been told by those officers to whom I have spoken that in no case are the payments which they agree ever reduced by their committees, and that, indeed, very often they are raised. It is


obvious, therefore, that they get the fullest support.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer—the necessity for the presence of people with a full experience of local government, not only on the staff of the National Assistance Board, but also on the appeal tribunals. I would like to echo what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) about the necessity for bringing local authority employees with experience of local assistance on to the staff of the Board. Compensation is not enough. We need their experience. As for the appeal tribunals, I am not convinced that, in every case, they will be the best medium for settling differences. For example, in the case of an application for assistance being refused at the present time, the applicant has the right, in Scotland, to apply to the sheriff. The sheriff stands outside the official run of things altogether, and that is his particular value. I should have thought, as has already been contended by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, that it is quite plain that an appeal tribunal may get into a rut, and will tend, on the whole, to take the official point of view, whereas the sheriff keeps himself in touch with public opinion through his many contacts with it, and is, therefore, more likely to take a completely unbiassed attitude towards the case.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give the House some indication of the normal limits in the exercise by the National Assistance Board of their authority. For example, there is the Clause under which the Board may require local authorities to set up and run reception centres. Can the Minister say what is to be the normal attitude to that? At the present time, in the constituency which I represent, reception centres are separate from other institutions under the local authority. Will it normally be the case that reception centres will remain under the local authority—or, in general, is the Board going to take over these reception centres?
With regard to the administration of the law in connection with the blind and other handicapped persons, we shall all, of course, look forward to the regulations which are to standardise the allowances for these people throughout the Kingdom.

Plans for the services for the blind, deaf and crippled, and for the setting up of hostels and residences for the old and infirm, are to be prepared by the local authorities, and are to be submitted to the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Health. We all hope that this provision will operate—as I am sure it is intended to operate—as a spur to local authorities to get on with the tasks which are now compulsorily laid upon them. But it is possible that this may not happen at the present time; it may be the economists will come along and say that this is not the time to build the new homes and institutions which are required. The Financial Memorandum talks of a period of five years within which the homes are to be set up. It is difficult for us on this side to envisage that local authorities will be in a position to carry out that work within the prescribed period unless they are relieved of part of the housing programme that at present falls upon them. If they are to remain the sole builders of houses—or nearly the sole builders—I cannot see them carrying out this part of their duties under the Bill.
Therefore, I very much hope that, along with this culminating Measure to round off the social legislation on which we have embarked since the war, there will be a relaxation of the regulations regarding building, so that it may be possible for houses to be built for the families of today and of the future, and, at the same time, for the needs of the old and infirm to be catered for.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: I am very happy to be able to join with hon. Members on both sides of the House in warmly welcoming this momentous Bill, and in congratulating the Government on the sympathy and understanding with which they have put forward the provisions embodied in it. Many hon. Members have used their experiences and their constituencies in order to illustrate their points; I hope that the House will forgive me if I confine myself to the provisions in the Bill which deal with the services for the blind and deaf because I have had a life-long association with sufferers from those two disabilities. The blind have always been able to attract a great deal of sympathy and help, and indeed there has been special legislation on their behalf. That


has been quite properly accepted by this House and the country as some assistance for the great affliction from which they suffer. The deaf have not been so fortunate. The disability of deafness is probably the least understood of all the major disabilities. It attracts less sympathy, and I believe this is the first time that, in any major Bill, they have been specifically mentioned pari passu with the blind. We welcome that. We are very glad indeed that the Government have recognised what a great affliction deafness can be—not only total deafness, but deafness in varying degrees.
There are certain aspects of Part II of the Bill on which I would like to make one or two comments. I wish to refer to Clause 5 which empowers the National Assistance Board to make special provision for blind persons and also for tubercular subjects. The provision of domiciliary assistance hitherto has been laid upon the local authorities, and this has led to very different standards of assistance and differences in rate incidence. It has also led to a great deal of feeling among blind persons themselves in adjoining localities. In one locality they come under the jurisdiction of a progressive, sympathetic local authority in which the rates of domiciliary assistance are high compared with a neighbouring authority where they are sometimes very niggardly. By this Clause the Assistance Board lays before Parliament regulations which will give not necessarily an absolutely standard rate for the whole of the country, but standard rates of assistance for blind persons. I hope that when the Assistance Board frames these regulations they will take as a model not the most niggardly of the local authority rates but those of a generous nature. In particular, I urge the Minister to see that no blind person, whatever the rate he is getting today, will suffer any diminution in income because of the application of these rates.
Those of us who have been engaged in blind welfare work for many years regret that the Minister has not been able to accept that which has been a feature of our recommendations, namely the handicap allowance—the cost of blindness allowance. The case for this allowance has been put to the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) and

others on many occasions. We believe that blindness imposes an additional cost at almost every economic stage of a blind person's activities. For instance, the successful journalist has to employ a secretary, the physiotherapist has to employ a chauffeur, and the housewife has to pay for even the ordinary services of life. We had hoped that, without any means test, the Minister would have been able to provide in this Bill some alleviation in those cases.
It is very gratifying to learn that there is a proviso to the effect that among the services to be performed by local authorities, they shall provide homes of different types for different kinds of persons. That means that homes can be provided for old persons and for infirm persons. We hope that the local authorities will not be backward in providing homes for blind persons of different types, some with multiple defects perhaps, and also for deaf persons. But there are certain types of homes in regard to which it is very difficult to see how the Bill is to operate. I refer to homes of a special character provided by voluntary organisations. I have in mind the homes of the National Institute for the Blind, for the deaf-blind—those who suffer from that terrible handicap of blindness and deafness. There are homes in Hoylake and Harrogate which in no sense of the word can be called local. No local authority, not even the London County Council, provides a home for the deaf-blind. In view of the aggregation of these people throughout the country, there should be an appropriate organisation like the National Institute for the Blind or the National Institute for the Deaf. There is a very strong case for a direct grant from the Minister to this voluntary assistance in order that application shall not have to be made to all the local authorities up and down the country in order to collect means of support. That applies to all the special services which these big national organisations render.
Today all the braille which is used for blind persons is produced at the printing works of the National Institute for the Blind; there is also a printing office in Edinburgh, and at the moment these are subsidised to the extent of a certain amount for each braille book, magazine and pamphlet which is produced. Unless grants can be made directly from the Government, we shall have to go through


all the local authorities and ask for grants on a per capita basis, which it would be impracticable to collect. There is special apparatus such as mathematical tables, typewriters, physiotherapy instruments and craftsmen's tools adapted for the blind; and, in the same way for the deaf, the National Institute for the Deaf has a research department which evaluates hearing aids and performs a useful service for the deaf community in addition to printing magazines, deaf and dumb alphabets and so on. These are national services, and I hope the Minister will find the means of subsidising these societies on a national basis and relieving us of the necessity of going round all the local authorities.
I would like to say a word or two on the subject of definition. I am sorry to see that the definition of blindness is taken from the Blind Persons' Act, 1920. To my mind, this is a bad definition because it imposes on a medical man the obligation not only to make a medical assessment of a person but to relate it to his capacity to work. The definition of blindness is:
A person so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential.
I contend that it is not the function of a medical man to make an industrial appraisement. All he should be asked is to assess the degree of vision and leave it to another body to decide on employ-ability. I do not know whether there is a misprint in Clause 28 where we find the expression "deaf or dumb." The expression "deaf and dumb" occurs several times in the Bill—in the table of contents, in the Financial Memorandum at the beginning and also in the margin index.' The words "deaf or dumb" have technically very little meaning, but the words "deaf and dumb" relate to the congenitally deaf—those who have not been able to acquire speech or language through natural means; that is to say, they have not been able to learn to speak or use language as an ordinary baby picks it up from his mother. I hope the words mean that the deaf and dumb and those very severely deafened are to be included in the Clause.
I also think there is need for clarification in relation to the possible infringement of the Minister's functions in the provision of workshops for disabled

persons, on those of the Minister of Labour under the Disabled Persons Employment Act. There seems to be a great deal of confusion there and we should welcome some clarification of the meaning of that Clause. The functions ought to be very plainly marked, so that we can distinguish between workshops for employment and those provided for part-time occupations or recreation.
One other feature that seems rather invidious, and, indeed, is inclined to be misleading, is the necessity for voluntary societies for disabled persons to register under the War Charities Act, 1940. There are up and down the country welfare societies for the blind and deaf that have a long and honoured history going back for a century or more. The first society for the blind was founded at the beginning of the 18th century. It does seem extraordinary that they should be required to register under the War Charities Act when the disabilities from which their beneficiaries suffer have nothing to do with war service. It is likely to mislead the public, and I do urge the Minister to see whether these charities could not be registered under this Bill. It is almost dishonest to appeal for funds on notepaper bearing the inscription, "Registered under the War Charities Act," when, in fact, those charities or the disabilities of those they serve have nothing whatever to do with any form of war service.
I hope that in the Committee stage some of the anomalies will be smoothed out and that we shall have, in the end, a Bill which will fulfil its purpose in the fullest sense, and bring a great deal of help and hope to these disabled people. I am thinking not only of the blind and deaf, but of the epileptics of whom we hear very little and whose need is so great. I am thinking also of those people, the number of whom is, unfortunately, growing, who have lately been stricken with infantile paralysis. I wish the Bill every success. I am sure that with other and recent Measures, it is a very fine experiment in social security.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Basil Nield: As the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans) has pointed out, and we all appreciate, the second part of this Measure provides an opportunity for considering the


special case of the physically disabled population. The hon. Member has presented—and presented from great experience—the case for the deaf and for the blind. The Minister, in opening this Debate, specifically mentioned two categories of disabled people, the blind and the tubercular. I wish, in the course of a few short observations, to present the case for those who are crippled from whatever cause, be it congenital or accidental or from disease.
For some time now some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer), and I have been in touch with a body which is called the National Cripples Reform League. That organisation has put out a document which we think a useful document, and I will send a copy to the Minister, if I may. It contains seven points on behalf of those who are so grievously handicapped. The first three points, perhaps, fall rather outside the scope of this Measure, but I should like to mention them in passing. In the first place, it is urged that research into the causes and prevention and cure of these disabling diseases should be increasingly undertaken and pressed forward. Secondly, from the point of view of education, it is suggested that, although under the Education Act, the handicapped child is provided with an education, still there is very limited accommodation in the special schools for those children. Thirdly, in the matter of training, it is represented that, whereas the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, does provide for the training of the disabled, there is need for very careful discrimination in choosing the particular training for the particular work in which a cripple may find his special condition the least handicap.
The fourth point of the Cripples' Charter, which is the document put out by this organisation, deals with the question of employment and falls directly within the purview of this Measure. Here again, the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, to which I have already referred, helps very largely in finding employment for those who are physically handicapped. I think that hon. Members will agree also that Clause 28 of this Bill considerably improves the position by providing, through local authorities workshops and hostels for these disabled persons, suitable work in the home and

elsewhere, and arrangements for aiding the disposal of the products of their work. The question has presented itself whether, where a man by reason of his physical incapacity is prevented from earning a normal wage, that should not be made up to a normal wage in view of his incapacity; and I was wondering whether under the regulations adumbrated in Clause 5 (3) of this Bill it might be proposed to make certain rules in that regard.
Following immediately from that point there is the position of the unemployable cripple who in no circumstances can do any work of any kind. It has been suggested that such people should not be dependent upon sickness grant and assistance, but should have an adequate national handicap allowance. In the Measure now before the House there is in Clause 28 a provision which will be welcome, namely, in Clause 28 (4) (f) the provision of recreational facilities for those who are so handicapped. It is to be hoped that those unfortunate people may be assisted to find some enjoyment in life, as well as opportunities for training and employment, and it may be that under that Clause there is proposed to be established eventually recreational centres and, perhaps, holiday homes.
The final point in this document that I propose to send to the right hon. Gentleman deals with a question which has arisen in another connection. It is right to point out that an increased cost of living must be borne by those who need and have to maintain surgical appliances. A wheeled chair may make a world of difference to a crippled person. We know that under the National Health Service there is provision made for the supply of these appliances, and it seems to me that perhaps under Clause 12 (2), which deals with assistance in kind—and that is there defined—this Measure might cover the supply of surgical appliances. Perhaps I might refer further on this point to the fact that some time ago a request was made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider an Income Tax allowance in respect of the maintenance of these appliances, for we all know that that is a very considerable and costly matter. These are times of great financial difficulty, but we owe, do we not, a high duty to those who must live their lives under the shadow of physical disability. I do not hesitate to commend these few


suggestions to all hon. Members, for it is my firm conviction that this House is never unmindful of the causes of humanity.

7.12 p.m.

Miss Bacon: I have listened with some attention to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Chester (Mr. Nield), because he has touched upon a subject similar to one that I wish to pursue later in my speech. I thought we had two very interesting speeches this afternoon from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and from the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). I am sorry the right hon. and gallant Member is not present—although I know he has been present during the whole Debate so far—to hear what I have to say, because I thought that his speech emphasised the difference between the attitudes with which the two sides of the House approach these matters. The hon. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) said that the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) ran away with her head. In listening to the two opening speeches in the Debate today, I thought my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health spoke with his head and his heart, whereas the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities spoke only with his head—and at times even that was a little befogged.
While hon. Members opposite have a good deal of theoretical knowledge about the Poor Law and the administration of assistance, we on this side of the House have practical and personal experience. Many of my hon. Friends on these benches have themselves, at one time or another, been recipients of poor relief, and have seen their relatives, friends and neighbours having to apply for such assistance. Therefore, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must not be surprised if he arouses anger on these benches when he tells us how humanely the Poor Law has been administered in the past.
Like every other hon. Member who has spoken, I welcome this Bill as a long overdue sure. Today we are burying' the Poor Law, and I do not think that many tears will be shed at its passing. If there is one man who, had he been alive,

would have liked to have been here making a speech on this Bill, it is Charles Dickens, and he, I am sure, had he been a Member of this House, would have been sitting on these Labour Benches. What rousing support he would have given to a Bill which banishes for ever that Poor Law system against whose cruelties and miseries he spoke for so long. Our Poor Law system began its ugly career in the days of Shakespeare; it went on gathering strength and victims through the centuries; it failed to arouse the sterile consciences of rich Tory Governments; but at last, in this Bill, it is being slain with one blow by the Ministers of Health and National Insurance. We all know the personal tragedies which have been caused by the indignity of having to ask for assistance from the rates, and I, too, am very pleased that assistance is to be a national and not a local charge, so that no longer shall we have the poorest sections of the country paying more merely because they are poor.
I welcome, too, as have many hon. Members who have spoken, the disappearance of the workhouses. It is monstrous the way in which we have allowed our old people, after arduous and useful but ill-paid work, to end their days in these institutions, and I welcome the setting up of the old people's homes which have been described by my right hon. Friend. He said that they will be small, and that everybody will be able to pay their way in them, either from the money which they have as their old age pension, or from that which is given by the Assistance Board. I believe this to be good, but there is one point that I wish to make with respect to these homes. There are many old people who do not wish to be segregated as old people; they like to see life around them; they like to take an interest in the young, particularly in children, and to hear the laughter of children around them. Therefore, when the local authorities are setting up these homes, I hope they will not isolate the old people too far away from the centres of population.
I hope, too, that these schemes for homes for the aged will be complementary to, and not instead of the very excellent little houses and bungalows which local authorities are building on housing estates, and that the Minister of Health will see to it that where these small houses and bungalows are being built there are


available to the old people those hot meals' services, and health and nursing services, which are being developed in some places, so that as many old people as possible will find it easy to go on living in their own little homes, because I am sure that as long as they can do so that is what they would really prefer.
Mention has been made of the provision for handicapped people, and I was pleased to hear the two previous speeches, dealing particularly with the blind and the crippled, respectively. This Bill bridges the gap in providing for those handicapped people. But very little has been said today about another large class. of handicapped people—the mentally handicapped. There is always a very great tragedy in a home where a mentally handicapped child is born; a child termed "ineducable," too bad to go to school, yet whose parents do not wish it to go into a home. I know it may be very easy, to say, in a detached kind of way, that the best place for such a child is in an institution; but sometimes the parents do not think so, and prefer to keep their child in their own home. Today, many such parents are making great sacrifices in order to look after these mentally handicapped children. Therefore, I am pleased that this Bill makes provision for home training to be given to such children and such people, because I believe this, is a class of persons which has previously been forgotten.
There is one point about these handicapped people on which I am not clear, or, at least, so far as I am clear I do not believe the provisions to be very satisfactory. I refer to the financial allowances for those who are absolutely incapable of earning their own living. By this Bill, the household means test goes, but husbands are responsible for their wives and children, and wives are responsible for their husbands and children. I should like to ask the Minister whether that means that where a person of this kind is absolutely incapable of employment he or she will not receive any financial aid unless the parent can prove it to be absolutely necessary. Is there a means test on the parent of such a person before a grant can be made? I believe that a very good case can be made out for giving a grant to such people when they are absolutely incapable of work.
This is a very good Bill. I hope that if it can be perfected in small ways, that

will be done. The Poor Law has lived so long that it is very difficult to bury. Old inhumanities die hard. The success or failure of this Bill will be in its day-to-day administration, because it is the small things that count in a Measure such as this. It is said:
Evil is wrought by want of thought As well as want of heart.
It is also said that poverty consists in feeling poor. I hope that not only shall we abolish poverty by this Bill, but also the feeling of pauperism, which so many people have had in the past. As my right hon. Friend said, this is the fifth of our social security Measures, Measures which, when they come into full operation, will give new zest and hope to thousands of people. For them the road will not wind up hard the whole of the way, but as the summit is nearer, the path will be less steep, the ground much softer, and the burden lighter than ever before.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I am sure we all agree with the sentiments of the hon. Member for North-East Leeds (Miss Bacon), when she speaks of the necessity of implementing this Bill in a humane manner. It is the manner of administration which will determine whether we shall banish for ever the stigma of the Poor Law. It is still possible, in the absence of humane administration, for many of the disadvantages of the old Poor Law system to remain after this Bill has come into operation. I quarrel with the hon. Lady for trying to convey the impression that the desire for this legislation, and, indeed, the mainspring of this legislation, comes from hon. Members opposite. Many hon. Members opposite will have seen "Social Insurance, Part I" which was presented to the House in 1944. The work on it was started in 1944, and it is the source of these five Bills, some of which have now become Acts of Parliament, to which we readily give assent on both sides of the House.
I wish to sound a note of warning, and I hope hon. Members opposite will not imagine that it in any way indicates that I am uncertain or not enthusiastic about this-Measure. The hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) was good enough to remind us of the evils which have been perpetrated in the past, and I have come to the conclusion


that all good progressives are people who will not look to the future, but only to the past. I would remind her that those bad days—and no one will deny that they were bad days—may be with us again. It is all very well, while we are living substantially on tick, and while goods can be sold overseas with reasonable readiness, to talk about the neglect of unemployment queues, but if in 12 months time we reach a position in which overseas aid is more difficult to obtain, and goods are not so easily sent overseas, we may not be facing so easy a situation. Therefore, these proposals, desirable as they are, should be regarded with some caution, because industrially our future is by no means certain. That proviso in no way detracts from the welcome I give to this Bill.
This is an agreeable path which both the Opposition and the Government can tread together. The measure of the pleasant nature of this Bill is shown by the fact that the most truculent of right hon. Gentlemen, the Minister of Health, and the most truculent of hon. Ladies, the hon. Member for the Exchange Division, could not really get any venom out of it. The Minister of Health made a very surprising statement. He said that bigness was the enemy of humanity. We on this side could not agree more. We are surprised to note that people who have that conception should have introduced the incredible industrial monstrosities, inflicted in the form of various Bills, in the last year or two. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that admission. I find there is apparently a little trouble in the Cabinet on this important question of tramps. The Minister of Health was very keen to mop up the tramps, whereas the Lord President of the Council referred to them at a public function not long ago as being people not without their qualities, whom he would be very sorry to see disappear from the London Embankment. I leave that small difficulty to be settled internally in the Cabinet.
The Conservative Party have always been concerned with social reform, and we can say with truth that the name of Disraeli will always be associated with the social reforms of the last century. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is looking backwards now?"] It does hon. Members good at times to have their minds directed to the

facts of history, because I do not believe that Socialist history is at all reliable. In this century, we might well say that Neville Chamberlain was perhaps the most insistent and sincere social reformer. He would have rejoiced to introduce this Bill today.
The capacity for social legislation depends not merely upon the will to implement it, but upon the material capacity of a country to produce. If an hon. Member opposite asks me why we did not have the same standard of social advantages some hundreds of years ago, the answer is that these things must depend upon the standard of our production. I want hon. Members opposite to' realise that we on this side have an interest in this problem, and that we too have made a contribution. I am glad to see the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. A. Evans), because when I went down to his constituency in an unfruitful effort to keep him out of this House, I heard him proclaiming with great authority, assisted by a very efficient loudspeaker, that he and his party had been responsible for introducing the Measure which put family allowances into operation. I hope that since the hon. Member has been in this House, he has taken the opportunity to inform himself more carefully about that Measure, and that he has learned with satisfaction that it was introduced by a Conservative Party.

Mr. David Jones: Can the hon. Member explain precisely what would have happened to family allowances had the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) been Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing the family allowances Measure. We are discussing another Bill.

Mr. Shepherd: The provision of more assistance and social advantages of all kinds is obviously something to which we must always direct our attention, but there is a danger of causing to grow up in society a class of individual who relies too heavily upon these social services. There are people who are prepared to take advantage, and we should not attempt in any way to encourage people to behave as adult babies, anxious to make use of the public feeding bottle.


There is that danger, and I think that Members on all sides should recognise such possibilities.
There is nothing more satisfactory to me in this Bill than the attempt which is being made to provide accommodation and a better life for our aged people. In my opinion, there is nothing which can give us less satisfaction than the life we have meted out to many of our old people. It is the least satisfactory of all the social aspects of our life. The Nuffield inquiry said that there had been an improvement in the condition of old people in the years which have passed since before the war, and for the benefit of Members opposite I would like to point out that that improvement was attributed by that inquiry to the Supplementary Pensions Act, which was introduced by the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain. But there is still a great deal of distress among old people; they live colourless and drab lives in the most distressing conditions.
It is one of the less satisfactory of Divine arrangements that women live longer than men, and as a consequence the lot of many of them—hundreds of thousands of them, particularly in our large cities—is appalling. I believe that if we conducted an investigation into the lives of many elderly women in our great cities we should find examples just as terrifying as those which Charles Dickens found in his day. The harsh lot of many elderly women is not appreciated by the mass of the people who go about their ordinary work and have the opportunity of living more or less ordinary lives. Many of these women are left, as someone put it the other day, "to weep their way to the grave, unwanted, unseen, and uncared."
I hope that this Bill marks a determination on the part of the Government, and everybody else—because this is an obligation on the whole of the community—to see that these people are better treated than they have been in the past. The Minister referred to these homes for old people as "hotels." I hope they will not be referred to like that; I want them to be regarded as real homes. In any case, the word, "hotels," brings to my mind the hon. Member for Upton (Mr. A. Lewis) doing his roadside ritual—a picture I do not want to have created in our minds at the present time. What we want for these old people is the provision

of small homes. The ideal would be 20 or 30 of them living together. We should maintain the existing names of the houses which are taken over for this purpose, because we must avoid the institutional aspect.
I also suggest to the Minister that he should invoke the aid of voluntary organisations. I am convinced that local authorities may well fail to get on with the job as quickly as they would like, for many reasons. But if they could get local organisations behind them, to adopt a home, or help run it, they could achieve greater success than by trying to run the home themselves. Even when the homes have been established, and occupied, there will still be great scope for voluntary organisations. They can supply amusements, arrange games, and do all kinds of things in connection with which the voluntary touch is of such great value. I welcome this Bill, because it is a step on the road to social betterment. Although things in the international sphere look very dark indeed today, I hope the time will come when the greatness of a nation will be measured not merely by the strength of its arms or the might of its industrial machine, but by the service and care which it affords to its people.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Albert Evans: It would be out of Order, for me to attempt to follow the remarks which have just been made by the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) in his reference to the Family Allowances Act, although I do know that many thousands of mothers in my constituency bless that Act, and thank the Government for it. The hon. Member said that this Bill contains no venom. From the tone of the Debate so far, it seems that the Bill docs not give rise to any political controversy. There are points of difference, of course, and Clauses on which Members are not agreed, but, generally speaking, the Bill does not give rise to political controversy and is, therefore, a suitable Measure on which to address this House for the first time. The Bill, being non-controversial, will enable me to avoid infringing the Rule that a Member's maiden speech in this Chamber should not be controversial.
It has been claimed for this Bill that it will finally sweep away the last remnants of the Poor Law. The phrase" abolition


of the Poor Law has been used by previous speakers. In the Memorandum which accompanies this Bill, that point is made in these words:
It is indeed the fundamental object of the Bill to achieve the final break-up of the Poor Law, and create an entirely new service founded on modern conceptions of social welfare.
The "Manchester Guardian" echoes that in saying:
The remnants of the Poor Law, which have existed in the country since Queen Elizabeth's reign, will vanish under the terms of the National Assistance Bill.
What does this claim amount to? That, by the Bill, we are abolishing the last remnants of the Poor Law. That claim must mean something more than that we shall repeal the Poor Law enactments. If it means anything, it must mean that we shall clear away the essence of the Poor Law and the stigma that goes with it. If this Bill is successful in removing that stigma from the minds of the poor, then it will indeed go down in history as a great Measure. But if that stigma is to go, it will need something more than this Bill, or an Act of Parliament, or regulations. It will need a different attitude of mind on the part of the administrators of outdoor and other relief for the poor. They have a very difficult job if they are to remove the stigma of the Poor Law. They have to humanise the relationship between the poor and authority—a difficult and complex task, and one which cannot be done merely by passing legislation.
Part II of the Bill centralises the machinery for outdoor relief. Local authorities are relieved of their Poor Law functions, and the National Assistance Board becomes responsible for the relief of every form of destitution and poverty. That is a big and serious responsibility which the National Assistance Board will have placed upon it. The Board will act according to the law we are now making and the regulations which this House will consider and approve. In those regulations there will be certain discretionary provisions allowing Poor Law officers a certain measure of discretion. They will be very important in operating the Measure. Although the Poor Law is going, we shall find that the first and last commandment of the old Poor Law will pass to the National Assistance Board.

The charge will be laid upon that Board, "Thou shalt relieve the poor." That the Board must do, as I understand it, at any time of the night or day. It must relieve destitution and poverty. After the stigma of the Poor Law has disappeared, this National Assistance Board must be something more than a national Poor Law authority. We shall only be changing the form of machinery if the National Assistance Board becomes merely the Poor Law authority on a national scale. It must become a progressive and enlightened welfare authority—and I stress that word "welfare." It has to win over the poor, get their trust, and remove the old stigma of the Poor Law in their minds. It can do so only through its method of administration. It can remove that stigma only by humanising the relationship between the poor and itself.
Some speakers have doubted whether the National Assistance Board will be able to achieve that objective. There are instances in the history of the Board which give rise to a doubt as to whether it can perform that humanising process. At one time the Assistance Board—it was then called the Unemployment Assistance Board—did gather to itself its own stigma, the family means test. Although today we are in different times economically, we cannot be sure that the conditions of 1932 and 1934 will not come back. We cannot legislate on that assumption, and the Board has to remove the stigma which became attached to it as a result of the family means test. That will be a difficult business. There are hundreds of thousands of men and women in this country today who still hear the name "Assistance Board" with some distress—and possibly hatred in some cases—because their experiences in those years were very bitter indeed. If the Board is to be successful, its officers must learn the art of welfare. It is not only an important science of tables and sums which can be paid out. It is an art, and a very difficult art. I believe the Board will have to employ trained welfare workers if it is adequately to fulfil its task. Hitherto it has not done so, but has relied upon personnel recruited largely from the Civil Service and local authority offices.
The object of Part III of the Bill is to abolish the workhouse. A different kind of accommodation will have to be provided by


local authorities. It has been mentioned that there will be delays in providing that accommodation, but quite a lot can be done with existing buildings. The more progressive authorities have already begun the adaptation of existing buildings in order that they may personalise their accommodation—if I may put it in that way. Under Clause 27, new buildings will be subject to an Exchequer grant, and I think the Minister might look at that Clause again. It seems to me that, in the interest of providing a variety of accommodation in keeping with modern conceptions, he should encourage local authorities by applying the Exchequer grant not only to the new, but also to the old buildings adapted to provide modern accommodation.
It is within the knowledge of many hon. Members that the more progressive local authorities have already re-named their public assistance committees, and now call them "social welfare committees." It may seem to us, sitting here discussing these matters, that this rationalising of these matters—intellectualising them, if you like—is very unimportant; but it is important, I submit, to the people concerned, the poor who have to use these places, who have to go to these committees. After all, it is for these people that we are legislating. I think it would have been as well if this Bill had been called the "National Welfare Bill." That is a more modern term, and would mean something warmer to the poor people who have to go to the Board. This question of terms may not seem to be very important to us, but I am convinced that it is important to the poor people who have to go to the authorities for assistance.
The Assistance Board has got to create an officer whom it designates the investigating clerk. It will be his job to go into the homes of the poor and find out what are their means. It is not a nice-thing for an aged widow to learn that an investigating clerk is going to call on her. It would be kinder, I submit, if she were to learn that a welfare worker was to call. This may not seem very much to any of the hon. or right hon. Gentlemen sitting here, but to the poor in the back streets of my constituency these names convey good or ill. Pre-1934 terms cannot be helpful.
On the subject dealt with in Clauses 28 and 29, welfare services to the handicapped, much has already been done. The

Bill will encourage progressive authorities to go on with the good work they are doing, and will stimulate some backward authorities to come abreast of modern conceptions. The relevant sections of the Education Act do much in the matter. It is practicable to take the handicapped at the earliest possible stage, particularly the blind, the deaf and the dumb. I think that Clause 14, which deals with the rights of appeal of the applicant when he comes to the Assistance Board, should be more widely known. Every applicant should be given clearly to understand that if he is not satisfied with the decision of the officer,' he has a right to appeal to the tribunal.
I think, also, it would be as well if the Minister would consider amending that Clause to enable the applicant to take with him a friend or an adviser when he comes before the tribunal. Many of these poor people are not able to express themselves adequately and do justice to their case. Clause 57, which deals with compensation of displaced local authority officers, is a new departure. In previous legislation, the compensation costs have always fallen on the receiving authority. I hope that whoever replies to this Debate will mention that matter and explain it.
The Ministers concerned have introduced what I consider to be a very good Bill. It has very worthy objectives—worthy in themselves and worthy of the Government. They have brought to the making of this Measure a certain amount of vision, and if that vision pervades all the personnel who have to deal with its administration, it will indeed become a very great Act.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: I am sure that all hon. Members will join with me when I say how interested we have been in the thoughtful contribution to our Debate which has just been made by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. A. Evans). Speaking as someone to whom addressing this House always involves a big measure of blood, sweat and tears, I was extremely envious of the assurance and the ease and sang-froid with which he addressed himself to a task which added at least 10 years to my age when I undertook it. I am sure that we shall always look forward to the hon. Member's interventions in our future Debates.
Many of us on this side of the House were disappointed that there were so many things in the Local Government Bill last week to which we took objection that we had to vote against it, and it is the pleasanter, on that account, that today we have a Measure to the main provisions of which we can give, I think, our sincere approval and support. One of its main objects is to help the elderly and those other people who, for various reasons, find it difficult to meet the buffets and rigours of competitive life without a little help of the right kind. That is a good object. The Measure seems to us to tackle these problems on wise lines and to fit well, which is important, into the framework of the national social security schemes. I think that it will be agreed that today the elderly are a hard-pressed section of the community. The other day I accused the Minister of Health of showing a certain lack of confidence in the local authorities, and I am glad that today I can on this occasion completely exonerate him from that accusation. As a confirmed decentraliser, I do not quarrel in this case with the transfer of these particular functions to the new National Assistance Board. I think that the old Assistance Board has a great deal of success to its credit, and I have heard many tributes paid, to the humanity and sympathy with which the officers of the assistance board have handled, and do handle, these individual cases.
As regards the welfare services, I am glad these are to be left with the county councils, and I hope that the county councils in their operation will delegate really worthwhile functions downwards to local advisory and managerial bodies. Whatever the shortcomings of the old Poor Law and public assistance schemes—and, of course, they were many—I think that we ought to pay some tribute to the many people who have conscientiously carried out their duties within the limitations imposed by the law and the regulations—the members of guardians' committees and local public assistance committees—duties which are always unspectacular, often difficult, and sometimes frustrating.
With regard to the new homes, I agree that they must be homes and not institutions. Their success will depend on the skill with which necessary care is combined with the assurance of some independence

and privacy. They must be small and they must be local. I agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland when he says that old people do not want to be segregated but want to mix with their neighbours and with the younger folk. I am sure that is right. This part of the Bill is bound to take much time to complete. It adds quite a formidable list of capital expenditure projects to the big programme which already stretches away to the horizon, and beyond. Meanwhile resource must be used and something perhaps may be done by using those medium sized—large but not too large—private houses which many people are finding too big for their own requirements today. I support what the hon. Member for North East Leeds (Miss Bacon) said about small houses. Whatever we do with these homes, there will always be a need for small independent houses, not segregated, but mixed up with other houses for the benefit and use of old people. I also agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) said when he expressed the hope that the fullest use would be made, particularly in the early days, of existing voluntary schemes and services. The practice of marrying-up new statutory machinery with the existing voluntary services is in the best tradition of our social legislation. It is also a good point in this Bill that tuberculosis grants are to be extended to incurable cases.
I would also like to say a word about the treatment of vagrants. I am sure that the greatest possible emphasis must be on rehabilitation. Some of the old chaps have got to be quite happy in their nomad kind of life, and possibly it is the kind of life they prefer; but with the younger men every possible help must be given to influence them and guide them to a more settled and useful kind of life. The cooperation of the local authorities in running the rehabilitation centres which will be a responsibility of the new Assistance Board will, I think, sometimes be found useful. My own county council are doing something in this direction of rehabilitation at present with encouraging success. The reason for younger vagrants getting on to the road are so many and so deep-seated that arrangements for training must be flexible and must be ambitious.
In conclusion, I welcome this Bill as a useful and appropriate contribution to our


great national social security schemes, and as a Measure which, if it is administered with understanding will, I believe, do a lot to bring greater happiness and fresh opportunities for life to a great many deserving people who, situated as they are, without a helping hand can do so little for themselves.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: It is not without interest that the great Elizabethan Poor Law will apparently be receiving its death blow tonight without a single voice from either side of the House being raised in its defence. When that law was conceived, it was no doubt regarded as being to some extent generous, but so much has the outlook of people been broadened and their sympathy extended that it is now almost universally regarded as harsh and restrictive. I look upon this Bill as one of the best that has been introduced in the life of this Parliament. I believe it will resolve more headaches and indeed nightmares of people engaged in local government than perhaps any other Bill. May I, in a moment or two, tell the House from my experience, of some of the headaches which will be relieved when this Bill becomes law?
Many old people receive non-contributory pensions, not as a right but as their necessities demand and when they have insufficient means. When such patients go into a hospital, at any rate in the area of the London County Council, they generally hand over their pension books to the steward, and the steward draws their pension of 26s. a week. Of this pension, 21s. goes for their maintenance and treatment and they have returned to them 5s. a week as a comforts allowance.

Mr. Walker: In some cases it is only 2s. 6d.

Mr. Hastings: It may be 2s. 6d. in some places elsewhere; in London it is 5s. After 13 weeks in hospital a change occurs because such people can only receive any pension at all when their means are less than £209, and the cost of treatment and maintenance in hospital is regarded as means. Therefore, in the case of the London County Council hospitals, where the cost of maintenance and treatment is about £240, after 13 weeks these poor people have their pension com-

pletely withdrawn and they receive not a penny as comforts allowance. We had in March last no fewer than 550 such cases in the wards of the London County Councils' hospitals. I do not suggest that all these people were completely penniless, because some of them may have had help from friends or from some charity, but suddenly after 13 weeks they find their comforts allowance had disappeared, and they blame the London County Council because in some other areas where cost of hospital maintenance and treatment is less this allowance was at any rate in part maintained. I am grateful to this Bill in that the outlook will be completely changed and the cost of hospital treatment will not be counted as means, although it is quite true that the Bill states pensions will be adjusted. That, I take it, will mean that at any rate these aged patients will have some pocket money while they are in hospital.

Mr. Burden: Is it not a fact that all pocket money was stopped because the London County Council had appropriated the hospitals and worked them under the Public Health Act, whereas if they had been under the Poor Law, the allowance would have been continued?

Mr. Hastings: This may have been one of the disadvantages of appropriation, but there were so many advantages in appropriation that the London County Council very rightly decided to appropriate.
I come now to the second of my nightmares. I think perhaps the saddest sight I am ever called upon to witness is when I have occasion to go into the old peoples' wards of the workhouses or public assistance institutions, as they are now called, and see old people sitting on high backed chairs against the wall, in some cases with their only possessions under the chair in which they are sitting, and often with windows so high that they cannot look out. There they are sitting, reading, but too often doing nothing at all, apparently only waiting to die and rather hoping that it will not be too long delayed.
This Bill makes a complete change. As soon as can be arranged there are to be small homes or hostels for old people. I have seen these homes in London and elsewhere and I know how very happy people can be in them. One thing seems


to me essential. Old people do not like being uprooted. They prefer to remain in the same area in which they have lived and their main interests as a rule are their old friends, and particularly their children and grandchildren. I hope it is realised that it is essential that these homes, which may be and should be adapted houses, must be as near as possible to where the old people have spent their lives. I had that impressed upon me strongly in 1944 when it was my business on behalf of the London County Council to visit evacuated people in various parts of England. I found both the old people and the children were well treated in nearly every case, but I found that whereas the children were happy in practically all the cases, in spite of the kindliest treatment nearly all the old people were miserable. All the interests for which they had lived had disappeared.
I feel that in these homes, from which we are hoping so much, there must be as much freedom as possible and there should be as little restriction on visitors, on coming in and going out, on the old people wearing their own clothes, and having nicknacks and possession around them. The Minister pointed out that in all cases some payment will be made for accommodation in these homes or hostels by those concerned. He suggested that perhaps in many cases assistance of about 26s. a week would be provided, and of this 21s. would go for accommodation and 5s. be returned as pocket money. Out of this pocket money will have to be provided all the ordinary odds and end that old people want—papers, stamps, tobacco, peppermints and so on. There will be very little left to buy clothing, and I am wondering what the Minister has in mind. Does he expect clothing to be provided out of this sum as well? I cannot help thinking that in these small homes the key person will be the matron. I have found that in hospital wards for the chronic sick and in institutions, the whole atmosphere depends upon the character of the sister. Occasionally you get a sister who is at once both efficient and kind, but that is rare. I suggest that in selecting matrons for these homes or hostels kindness should be the first consideration.
A sufficiency of such homes will do a very great deal to remove from the old people the fear which is always present

in their minds of the workhouse to which they may have to go, and will make it much more difficult for those who run inefficient homes for the aged for profit to keep their homes going. Such people always hold out, when complaint is made by the old people under their charge, the threat that they would otherwise have to go to the workhouse, where their condition would be much less happy. The Bill also decrees the registration and inspection of such homes, but the definition of an old persons' home is rather vague. It is couched in very broad terms. It reads:
any establishment the sole or main object of which is, or is held to be, the provision of accommodation, whether for reward or not, for the aged.
How about the daughter who keeps a home for her aged parents? Will she have to register and have her home inspected? I do not think there would be a very great hardship if that were the case, but it would be interesting to know whether such is contemplated by the Bill.
There is one last point. Clause 30 permits local authorities to make subscriptions to voluntary organisations whose activities consist in or include the provision of recreation or meals for old people. This is a desirable Clause, but in the useful Circular 49 sent out by the Ministry of Health earlier this year, local authorities were urged to consider the provisions of clubs for old people. They were told that the Minister would be willing to consider schemes for providing such clubs. It is presumed, therefore, that the provision of such clubs is legal at the present time. Would it not be useful to insert into Clause 30 words to make it abundantly clear that such clubs and recreational facilities may be provided both by voluntary organisations and also by local authorities themselves?
If time permitted I could give other examples from my experience in connection with assessment and vagrancy to show how greatly the difficulties of local authorities will be eased when the Bill, becomes law. But. I hope I have given sufficient examples to indicate how strongly I approve of the principles underlying the Bill.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) has the advantage of considerable medical knowledge as well as knowledge of these matters, and he has dealt


with points of great interest to the House. I very much regret that I shall not be able to follow him very closely. I thought he put his finger on one of the real essentials of this Bill when he spoke of the human factor with particular regard to the aged and the location of their hostels. If they are to play the part we wish them to play, he is right in saying that they must not be situated too far away from the homes where those people have lived, because unless we get this human factor aright, so much of the organisation and the economics of this Bill will de destroyed.
I am very pleased to be in a position for once to say that I entirely welcome this Bill. On some other occasions I have not thought that a Bill was welcome in its form or even necessary, but this Bill is both welcome and necessary. I thought some hon. Members opposite were a little too apt to forget that this Measure, which is the last and fifth of the quintet of the new social security structure, was part of that envisaged under the Coalition Government and that it is not something new which has suddenly been produced out of a hat purely by the present administration. That is as it should be. That being the case, it is obvious that we on this side are bound to its general terms, for in fact it sticks fairly closely to the Beveridge proposals and the White Paper of 1944. If I say anything which is at all critical I wish it to be clearly understood that I fully realise that the broad principles are already decided and that I am merely looking about for ways in which it might be possible to make sure that we are doing the best job possible, being agreed as to the purpose of that job.
One or two references have been made to the Elizabethan Poor Law. The Minister of Health made a reference to the rather terrible punishments which were meted out under one of the Statutes to those who offended. I thought he might have gone on to tell us how terrible were the penalties for the second and third offences. Those statutes were of course designed to deal with a very great problem which was a new problem owing to the dissolution of the monasteries and the tremendous prevalence of vagrancy owing to the enclosures and other factors which rooted out people from the places where their families had lived for generations and set them moving about the country. There is no doubt that from

our point of view the Elizabethan Poor Law was rather savage, but we must remember that it achieved its purpose in that only today, many centuries after, are we finally abolishing it. Obviously it achieved something, although by the rather rough and ready methods of those days.
The thing which we should notice about it, which is of lasting importance, is the particular unit of administration which the Elizabethans chose for the organisation of their Poor Law. They went right down to the lowest unit of administration, the parish, and it was on the parish that they fastened the responsibility for the poor and for that new class of "sturdy beggars" which was troubling them. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this Bill is that we have gone to the other extreme. With one exception, we have gone in for Whitehall administration, for very centralised administration, and I am wondering whether we might not have gone too much from the one extreme of the very small unit to the other extreme of the too centralised administration. There is no doubt about it that the localised administration of Poor Law has great advantages, and in my remarks this evening I shall try to look at the Bill from that point of view.
One of the most important things at which one should aim in a scheme of public assistance is flexibility, and I am not absolutely certain that we have enough flexibility in this Bill. Hon. Members will remember that during the lengthy and friendly discussions we had on the National Insurance Bill, the most important Bill of the quintet, we spoke a good deal from these benches about the importance of flexibility and of not having too much centralisation. Recently, with certain hon. Members opposite, I was fortunate in going across to France to look at their social security scheme. What struck us most was the degree of decentralisation which existed, both within regions and within the subdivision of regions, the local "Funds." In both cases I believe there were committees elected by those who were actually concerned; they elected people to look after their interests, and those committees were allowed a certain amount of say; they could alter the system of benefits to quite a considerable extent, and they had a real interest in making things work


smoothly and adapting them to local circumstances. That has a lot to be said for it.
Obviously, we cannot go back on our present structure of National Insurance, but we should be wrong to lose sight of the need for getting the local elements to function efficiently. I feel we must look for flexibility in the new administration though it seems to be lacking. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) in the Second Reading of the Old Age Pensions Act of 1940 particularly stressed this, when he said:
We dislike the Poor Law system, but experience has shown that it is more resilient, more humane and more understanding than the abstraction called the Unemployment Assistance Board, with its elaborate classification of groups of people, with its inevitable standardisation, with its officialism and with its remoteness from the individual with whom it has to deal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1940; Vol. 357, c. 1478.]
The present Minister of Health during the passage of that Bill used these words:
That personal relationship which necessarily must exist between those who are giving assistance to the old people and the old people themselves, is so essential a part of the effective and humane administration of the assistance that people are frightened that this is to be revolutionised and that the old people are now to be passed under the control of officials over whose conduct there is no effective local check."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1940; Vol. 357, c. 2305.]
It seems to me that under this Bill more and more power will be handed over to officials who, however able, are very much bound as to the actual way in which they use their discretion and who, in fact, will have very little discretion indeed. I know there are difficulties about leaving local discretions.
In their famous book on Local Government the Webbs point out, in referring to the system of Poor Law relief at the end of the eighteenth century, the disadvantages there were under that system whereby any local magistrate could overrule the overseer, if he thought the overseer was not allowing any poor person enough, and give more. They point out that this led to an under-mining of the authority of the official. I am not advocating that, but I wonder whether under the new system we will get the same advantages as at present we get by means of a local committee—which is an elected body, and not dependent on Whitehall—and which is res-

ponsible for the actual awards made. In future the award will be made by the officials alone. It is true there is going to be an appeal to a special appeal tribunal, but many people would hesitate before they indulged in one of those appeals. If we look at the composition of the appeal tribunal itself we see that it is appointed by the Minister, and not elected. There is a danger that it will not be anything like so representative as the present system. In the case of non-contributory old age pensions, we are again abolishing a local representative committee and replacing it by a civil servant. Civil servants are bound to apply strictly the instructions they receive, and there is not the latitude for the amount of human sympathy which can be used by an elected committee.
This comes very near to being a committee point, but the Assistance Board is going to play such a large part in the new scheme that I think the House would be justified in looking at it a little more closely at this stage. At present, according to an answer to a Parliamentary Question, total salaries of the Board amount to something between £8,000 and £9,000, of which £5,000 goes to the chairman. Under the new system the powers of the Board are going to be very important, but the salaries are not to exceed £12,000. I should think that a modest sum, in view of the importance of the work undertaken. The Board itself is to be kept very small, and is to consist of a chairman, deputy-chair man, and one to four other members. An hon. Member asked whether there was to be a Scottish member. Obviously that is desirable, and if we are to have a Scottish member, and the whole Board may consist of only three persons—

Mr. Watkins: The hon. Member is advocating a small Board. Would he include a representative for Wales?

Mr. Digby: I have no connection with Wales—but I am always sympathetic to the claims of Scotland and Wales, because many parts of the country have slightly different points of view, and it is very useful that they should be properly represented. Therefore I favour a larger Board.
We read in the Bill that a large number of regulations are to be made by


the Board and approved, if necessary, by the Minister. We on this side of the House dislike the system of having all that we would expect to see in the Bill made known a few years later. We shall undoubtedly await the regulations with a good deal of apprehension. A lot depends on what the regulations say. They may make or mar the whole project. It is, however, probably a good plan that the regulations should be drawn up by the Board, and then go to the Minister. The members of the Board are the right people to do it in the first instance, and we would rather it was done that way than the other way round.
What are the scales of relief to be? In the Beveridge Report, in Paragraph 369, these words are used:
It must meet those needs adequately up to subsistence level, but it must be felt to be something less desirable than insurance benefit; otherwise the insured persons get nothing for their contributions.
I would like to hear a little more about this from the Minister of National Insurance when he replies. Does he still agree with those words of the Beveridge Report? If so, what is his intention with regard to the regulations? The question of proof of needs and the examination of means clearly produces many difficulties. On the whole I should say that the new regulations are not perhaps as generous as they might be. We have to remember that we are here laying down a rule of thumb which will be applied generally throughout this country, and there will not be the local variations or the local discretionary power which, as I have said, there are at the present time. The position in regard to needs is perhaps not so difficult. I notice from the Report of the Assistance Board for 1944, which is the last Report I have been able to get, the total number of prosecutions was only 392. The concealment of earnings was by far the largest factor in those prosecutions. Clearly, something must be thought out to deal with that possibility to prevent any abuse.
Again, we read in the White Paper, that the younger persons who apply and who are capable of work, are merely to be referred to the employment exchanges. One cannot help wondering whether the employment exchanges will give sufficient attention to this matter. Occasionally, unfortunate examples are brought to my notice of persons who apply without

result to the employment exchanges. I am not sure whether sufficient attention will be given to cases of this kind. The question of means is most important. As the Beveridge Report rightly pointed out, it is most important to encourage savings. I do not think that the new limit of £400 has been fixed too generously. I am not quite sure why it applies only to what are technically called war savings, and not to general savings. I am not sure why a privilege should be given to those who happen to have invested their savings in one or two specified directions rather than those who have invested more generally.
Further, the amount of disregarded sick pay from a friendly society has been fixed at only 7s. 6d. a week. As far back as 1901, a Private Bill was introduced in this House, and accepted, by a former Member for North Dorset, my grandfather, to increase that exemption up to the extent of 5s. a week. Now, nearly 50 years later we are only willing to extend it to 7s. 6d. Another matter in regard to these disregarded amounts about which I am concerned is the case of an allowance from a firm. In the county I represent it is the practice to disregard a certain amount of an allowance from a firm. I cannot find any reference to this matter in the Second Schedule to the Bill. Another point in reference to means concerns non-contributory pensions, which I see are not to be assessed under the terms of the Second Schedule to this Bill, but under a different system, depending on the Act of 1936. I am worried to learn that despite the fact that we have now had the cheap money policy with us so long, savings amounting to over £750 are to pay interest at 10 per cent. If that is the correct figure, it is quite out of keeping with the times. We have had this-cheap money policy for a long time and there is every indication that it will continue. If the Minister thinks that the 10 per cent. is a normal return on savings, I am sure that he is misinformed.
On the important question of administration, if this scheme is to be a success, the administration must be good. The provision of accommodation is an extreme difficulty. As the Minister knows from his experience in connection with the provision of offices for the National Insurance scheme, it is not very easy to get accommodation. In answer to a Question by me not very long ago, the


Minister said that so far he had only been able to set up 600 offices. I would like to know what progress has been made since then. He will not be able to administer this scheme properly until he has a sufficient number of offices, and 600 for the whole of the country is no good at all. I hope that he will tell us how he intends to deal with that matter. It is no use to say that the Ministry of Labour exchanges can be used. We must have other offices as well.
I had intended to speak on the subject of the personnel who will administer this scheme but, as other hon. Members have dealt with that matter, I will not go into detail. It is one of the many matters which must be discussed in detail on the Committee stage. If we do not get the right personnel, the scheme will not work properly. The County Councils Association, in the memorandum they submitted to Lord Beveridge at the time of his Report, particularly stressed that if the officers administering any new public assistance scheme, became less accessible, the whole scheme was bound to suffer. Once again, I welcome this Bill, the broad outlines of which I am sure are right. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will take very careful steps to check bureaucracy and to ensure that even if he does not retain representative local institutions he is absolutely certain that in the administration of the scheme he is able to introduce a humane and sympathetic spirit.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Messer: Like every hon. Member who has spoken, I welcome this Bill. I find myself in agreement upon it, with some hon. Members with whom I usually disagree. I have often made plain my view in regard to the administration of social services. It is a bad thing for administration to be too remote. It is always a good thing if the people for whom the services are administered are as close as possible to the administration. While that is a good theory, we are faced with the fact that up and down the country there has been such a wide variety of rates of benefit that we could do nothing but centralise them. To take a small county like Lincolnshire, there are three county councils and two county boroughs—five authorities which, under the Act,

could pay different rates of benefit for out relief. It was simply absurd. Indeed, we get that even in urban areas, where the line of demarcation between the boroughs runs down the middle of the street, and we get a line of people on one side of the road receiving a different rate of domiciliary assistance from the people on the other side. Those of us who have been criticising that sort of thing must agree that we must have at least this measure of centralisation.
I want to deal with three or four of the categories of people who will come under this Bill. First, there are the old people. I have never felt that we could solve the problem of old age simply by giving people money. Even if we increase their pensions, the time arrives when it is not money, but service, that is wanted. It is a welfare service which is needed, and, as Chairman of the National Old People's Welfare Committee, I have been brought into close contact with the real tragedy of old age. I have seen people who have gone into institutions because it has been too difficult for them to be looked after at home, and I have seen how, when they got inside, they said goodbye to the world. They have been put to bed as a chronic case, often when they were nothing of the sort, but because it has been easier to deal with them like that. There they were, lying in bed, looking at a blank wall, and I should say that they would almost welcome the shadow of the sable wings of the Angel of Death overtaking them.
I think we should try to solve this problem with something like an approach to normality. We should keep old people out of homes as long as we possibly can. Under the National Health Service, there is a provision for local authorities to assist by means of home help. There are people who can remain in their own homes, and who should be allowed to do so. We have no right to consider that our obligation to those who have gone before us is finished by putting a roof over their heads and giving them three or four meals a day. They are entitled not merely to live, but also to enjoy life. There are many old people who would be very much happier if they could be brought within the reach of such treatments as physiotherapy and other aids which are made available to the young. Indeed, there is a hospital not very far from here where there is a unit


devoted to the care of people in old age, and in that unit, taking a comparison with other institutions, 70 per cent. of the people who go there return to normal life again.
I am glad to see that the dream of Charles Kingsley, Thomas Carlyle, Thomas Hood and Charles Dickens—and we ought not to forget Sidney Webb—is today being realised. The workhouse is going to be a thing of the past. It must not be imagined that all these institutions have been humanised. They have not. I have visited some where these old people sit around on hard seats, and where the only recreation ground is an asphalt area without a blade of grass to be seen. I am glad that that sort of thing is going. It may now be said that we can divide old people up into three groups. The first group consists of those for whom we could quite easily bring normality into their own homes through the provision of home helps. The second group consists of those who have got into a state in which they cannot be left, those who are ill or bedridden, who are in just that stage where they need some measure of care and attention. They are the sort of people who should go into a hostel where, if they are ill for a day or two, they can go to bed and get up again when they feel better, and where they can live, as near as they possibly can, what would be an ordinary life. That sort of hostel should be a completely free place where they can go out and come in when they want, and where they can receive visitors when they wish.
It is quite true to say that the tragedy of old age lies in segregation. We want to mix old people with young people. I think it was the Minister of Health who said that he did not want these old people to live in a colony where they would always be looking at funeral processions; he wanted them to see bassinets now and again. I do not know whether he thought that this would bring revived memories, but, at any rate, the idea is a good one. The way we treat our old people is a measure of our civilisation. I will say no more except to express my pleasure that we are going to deal with that sad feature of society.
But the care of old people does not finish there. There is a tendency on the part of those of us who have spent long years in local government to think that all

that is required is the decision which local government makes. I want to make a plea for the voluntary agencies. It is going to be a bad thing for the country if what has been a characteristic of ours, what helped to make us what we are—if we are what we think we are—the stream of good will which has meant so much to other people, is dammed. At the present time, there are committees up and down the country which are devoted to nothing else but the care of old people. In certain localities, the British Red Cross, the W.V.S., the women's institutes, churches, and all sorts of people get together and form committees. At the present time, there is in existence a corporation composed of the Lord Mayor's Air Raid Distress Fund, and linked with the Nuffield Trust, to which local committees can go for the purpose of making an application for a grant with which to help old people, to run old people's clubs, mobile canteens and food kitchens, and for the provision of small homes. That is a work which should go on. Local authorities ought not to want to hinder that sort of thing. What we want to do is to build a bridge between the local authority and the local agency. I have been in this House long enough to have seen many social welfare Measures passed, but I have never yet seen one that did not need something more to be done in the way of extra-statutory benefit. We ought to make it possible for those who are inclined to goodwill to bring to those who need it that addition which is outside the Statute.
The next section of the community to which I want to refer are the blind people. At the present time, blind people can draw three types of income from public funds. They are entitled—and I want to impress this on the Minister—to the old age pension at 40. The significance of that is that we are treating blind people in a different way from other handicapped people. There is no other section of the community which is entitled to an old age pension at that age. Those who go to work can obtain from public funds what is called "augmentation of income," which means that when they are obviously not in a position to earn what is an economic wage, they are entitled to have their income made up by the county or by the borough. Here, again, there has been such a wide variety of rates throughout


the country that they bear no relation to any general standard. The third source of income is what is called "domiciliary assistance." That assistance is paid to the special section of the community who are unable to earn money, who are entirely dependent on public funds, and who cannot be taught a trade. There again, all over the country there is a wide variation. I know two people living in the same road. One lives in London and the other, more fortunately, lives in Middlesex, and the Middlesex case gets more than the London case does. It is just an accident. What we are doing in this Bill is to standardise benefits. I ask the Minister to ensure that when the new scales are introduced, no blind person shall be worse off than he was before, and when the Minister is arriving at that national standard I hope he will give consideration to that request.
The next section of persons to whom I want to refer are those who are otherwise handicapped, such as the crippled. When we deal with public assistance it is as well for us to bear in mind that, in the main, it is a salvage service. The case of an unemployed man who has been earning money, who exhausts his benefit and then needs public assistance, is transitory. He has been earning money and he is going to earn money again. His position is temporary. But when we consider the congenital cripple, the person who has attained manhood or womanhood and has never been able to do any work at all, are we going to apply the same standards? I wish to reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans). Can we not recognise this handicap by paying a, handicap allowance upon which we will build up the other grants which are made, as in the case of normal people? I think it is worthy of consideration. It costs more to live when one is blind than it does when one is sighted, whatever one's position in society. A blind person cannot live on the same amount as a sighted person, and, to a lesser extent, that applies to those who are permanently handicapped in other ways.
I have no desire to make a long speech tonight. I had a wonderful speech prepared, and I have been sitting in the skittle alley watching all the ninepins knocked down one after the other, for

it is in the natural course of events that everybody should have had the same brilliant ideas as I had. I welcome the Bill, but in my concluding sentences I want to reinforce what has been said about administration. In work of this description, it is not what we do that matters so much as the way in which we do it. I have seen relief administered in a way that has humiliated those who received it, I have seen it made a thing of shame; but I have also seen it administered in such a way that the recipients hardly knew they were receiving public assistance.: It is a question of personality. Let the hope go out that those associated with this work are not just those who have been able to pass the matriculation examination. Human life is not based on a mathematical formula. There is something more in it than that. I say to the Minister: make your appointments according to the human appeal, the capacity to understand and the degree of sympathy which these people possess. This Bill will then be a monument to a Government which deserves well of the country, and which yet can deserve better.

8.54 p.m.

Sir David Robertson: I am sure the House will regret that the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) has been deprived of the opportunity of delivering the wonderful speech he had prepared, because we are all very conscious of his deep knowledge and of the great work he has done for the old, the poor, the blind and deaf. I wish to say a few words about the care of the aged, and in passing I would like to pay my tribute to the Assistance Board. Some hon. Members have expressed serious doubts about the centralisation of the scheme. I do not, because in the experience I have had of the Assistance Board in the Borough of Wandsworth, I have found that it has become decentralised, and that it has been staffed with competent officials, men and women of the sort the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) spoke of in his peroration—people who are conscious of human need, and who are mostly anxious to relieve it to the widest possible extent.
I am doubtful whether the homes envisaged by this Bill can be built in time to help our present aged people. The building situation is well known to all of us.


Local authorities have thrust upon them the burden of finding special hostels for these old people. In my own borough at this moment there are 10,000 homeless families—not people: families. That is one of the 30 boroughs in London. I suppose a similar state of affairs prevails throughout the country. It needs no imagination to see that it is going to be a very long time indeed before special homes can be built for the old people. However, I think a contribution can be made towards providing residential accommodation for the old people if, in the big industrial areas such as the London boroughs, the large houses which are too big or are unsuitable for converting into flats for housing are utilised as hostels for the old people. In my own constituency of Streatham a home of that kind was opened just 10 days ago. It accommodates about 20 old people. I think that is ideal in the present circumstances. It is also ideal because it keeps the old people in the place where they have resided for so long. There is nothing of the institution about it, and the old people can get out into the streets and see the bassinets, and life at all its ages and stages. I know that the Minister has that problem in mind.
There is another use to which we can also put these large old houses. A great many clubs have sprung up in such houses. I know of at least one in the London area, where there is a live membership of over 1,000. These lovely old men and women leave their bed sitting rooms where they are living in very dismal circumstances, and for six days a week can go to this club, and other clubs like it, and get a three-course lunch for eightpence and afternoon tea for a penny, and enjoy all the amenities of a first class club furnished with comfortable sofas and armchairs, where they can play billiards, or darts, and where there is an 18-hole putting course in the garden—and all that within 15 minutes of Westminster Bridge by tram or bus. I am glad to see clubs like that springing up. At Lewisham a few nights ago I attended a meeting of a committee entrusted with the creation of a similar club. There are difficulties about getting any accommodation at this time, but most of our big towns have houses of this large type, and surely one in each could be spared from ordinary housing for the immediate needs of at least 1,000 or more old people. Those

who, as I have done on many occasions, have seen these Edwardians and Victorians coming up to their clubs and meeting other old people, and finding great joy in their company, will agree that, at least, such club accommodation ought to be found them.
In addition to commending this suggestion to the Minister, I also suggest to hon. Members on all sides of the House that there is a great deal which each one of us can do in these days of shortages and difficulties to inspire and help committees to help the old people—committees composed of people who are not burdened with other public duties as aldermen and councillors are. We can all help, and the inspiration of an enthusiastic Member of Parliament can work wonders. Furniture can be got for these clubs; carpets and linen, too. It is wonderful how the community will respond to appeals for these things, and the voluntary services are sure to rally round to help—such organisations as the W.V.S., the Red Cross, and so on. I submit that suggestion to the House as a way of rendering immediate and great help.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Burden: Like the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer), at this late hour obviously I cannot deliver the speech I had intended to make. Therefore, I must confine myself to one point, and one point only, namely—and I make no apology for it—the position of the staff who may be adversely affected by this Bill. When the National Insurance Act was under discussion, the officers concerned made very strong representations to the Minister of National Insurance, and on 15th December, 1945, the Minister told the deputation:
Let me repeat that the eventual Bill is one which will transfer the functions of the public assistance authorities to the national body. When that stage is reached the principle of transfer will be clearly invoked, and the absorption of the displaced will be invoked also.
So far as I can see, transfer and absorption are not provided for in this Bill. I am not complaining. I know the difficulties. But it seems that some thought has been given, in the words of the Memorandum, to superannuation provisions for those who may be transferred to the Civil Service. A large number of men and women are likely to be adversely affected. I understand the figure to be


somewhere about 7,200. Many of these officers have statutory rights; they ought not to be penalised, and they ought to have a square deal.
It may be said that local authorities ought to absorb these men, but more and more of the responsibilities of local authorities are being lost to them, and it is very galling indeed to the men of the social welfare department to find their colleagues in the electricity and public health departments being transferred, while they are left high and dry without any transfer provision, and with very vague and indefinite compensation Clauses in the Bill. The officers concerned feel very deeply that they have a real grievance. I believe that the Minister is willing and anxious to do the right thing, and I ask him to renew negotiations with the organisations concerned in order, if possible, to reach a solution of these difficulties before this Bill is dealt with in Committee.
Finally, as one who has been a member of a board of guardians, and also a chairman of a public assistance committee, I say that I do not agree with the indiscriminate abuse which has been levelled at the Poor Law. I believe the Poor Law has played a great part in the past, but, remembering the great work of men and women in our movement—George Lans-bury, Will Crooks, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and others—I welcome this Bill, as the House generally has done, as a great milestone in the path of progress.

9.4 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I will follow the good example set by the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) and will be as brief as he was for the hour is late. Mention has been made today of pulmonary tuberculosis and the benefits which are to be granted under this Bill, not only to those of whom it is said they may recover, but also to those who are apparently incurable. This particular provision I welcome more than any other, because it would have been better by far that nothing should have been done than to tell people who come for benefit, "No, you may not have it because we think you will not get better." In the country, medical men, like myself, have had imposed upon them the duty of offering the death sentence to these men and women. Now that we have a

remedy, it will make life very much easier for some of us in this respect.
Much has been said about the Poor Law, and a defence of it was put forward a moment or two ago. It is true that the Elizabethan Poor Law was a comprehensive law. It was a comprehensive series of benefits as time went by, and in that respect it had something to be said for it. It differs in one particular respect from what we are discussing today. It came into existence because organised society feared those who were dispossessed and ill-treated, whereas today we are dealing in another way with this problem. I think that we feel affection, not only in the humane way, but real affection for those who find themselves in want and in need of the assistance of society and that is the essential difference. It has been said, and I do not doubt its truth, that when Queen Elizabeth died she refused to go to heaven, but insisted on the purgatorial plane because of her immense attachment to her country and devotion to her people. If that is so, and if she is still about, I hope she will have listened to this Debate and will have learned that not only devotion to the people, but also some understanding of suffering is needed.
Like every one else, I welcome this Bill. In this Debate many names have been mentioned of men and women who have contributed to our knowledge of how we should administer this type of law. In the Stoke-on-Trent area, there is a name which perhaps I may be allowed to mention, the name of Alderman Barber, who recently died. He started in the workhouse as a child, and he became our first citizen as Lord Mayor. His knowledge and understanding helped us in North Staffordshire very greatly to understand this problem.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Watkins: As the last speaker before the big guns come into operation, I hope that Queen Elizabeth will listen in to the point I am making, and that is that two Welshmen have been the Alpha and Omega in this Second Reading Debate. As I listened to this Debate, I wondered what would have happened in South Wales if this Bill had been introduced during the depressed years. I hope the Minister will let me know why Scotland gets a larger Exchequer grant than Wales. I do not mind


about England. Why cannot Wales be in the same position as Scotland? I am also interested in the new schemes to be prepared by local authorities. I suggest that the public assistance committees should not be asked to do this work. I know something about public assistance committees. Some people think that we have not now got the Poor Law. They had better come to my country, and then they will find out very soon. I do not want the responsibility of building the new world to be placed on the shoulders of these committees. Let us have some new blood to do this work. When the schemes are produced, I hope it will not be long before the Minister puts them into operation.
Finally, I wish to refer to the burial of paupers. Unfortunately, I witnessed the burial of a pauper only a few weeks ago. I brought this question to the notice of my local authority, and I protested about it. I hope, as a result of this Measure, that this will be dealt with far more humanely than it is dealt with at the present time. No Welshman can finish his speech without a great peroration. I will merely quote to the House the title of this pamphlet, "If Christ applied for Parish Relief", which was written in 1919. I am glad that it is one pamphlet at least which I can now put into the fire as a result of this Bill.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Richard Law: I cannot match the Welsh eloquence of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins), but I should like to say at once that I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) that this has been a most agreeable Debate. It has been agreeable not only because we have had speeches from Members who are well fitted to address the House on the technicalities of this very important subject, such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Nield), the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), my hon. Friend the Member for Western Dorset (Mr. Digby) and the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer). This Debate has been specially agreeable to me because I am not, by nature, a highly combative person, and I have felt that in spite of the divisions which are so deep between the two sides there is on this matter, a very general

fabric of agreement. The Bill has been welcomed in all parts of the House, and I do not think that any Member has opposed it except possibly the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock). The hon. Lady said that her constituents would be very much moved by this day in Parliament. I expect they will, but they will also be extremely muddled by her speech—

Mrs. Braddock: They understand me.

Mr. Law: I found it difficult to understand the hon. Lady's speech, and I will try to tell her why. The hon. Lady said that one of the great merits of the Bill was that it would do away forever with the system of relief which could be given at the discretion of the relieving officer in the form of goods instead of money. That made me feel that the hon. Lady had not read the Bill. If she looks at Clause 12 she will find that the Assistance Board has exactly that discretionary power to which she objected.

Mrs. Braddock: I did not expect the right hon. Gentleman to understand me, but I was referring to vouchers which have to be taken to shops and exchanged for food.

Mr. Law: The hon. Lady objected to relief being given in kind, and food is kind. That power is retained by this Bill. She also said that she did not think much more of the Assistance Board than she did of the old system. Well, if she does not think very much of the Board she does not think very much of a great part of this Bill because the Board is preserved in Part II. The only conclusion I can come to is that the hon. Lady hates the Bill rather less than she loves the Minister of Health.

Mrs. Braddock: Very funny.

Mr. Law: This is a very good Bill; it has been carefully thought out. That is not an epithet which I would normally apply to the impulses, generous, no doubt, as they are, of the Minister of Health, but this Bill is human and imaginative. It takes full account of the susceptibilities of the unfortunate people with whom those who will have to administer its provisions may have to deal.
The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) said that he thought this was


one of the best Bills that had been produced in the present Parliament. I would go further. I think it is, without qualification, the best Bill produced by the present Government. I must admit at once that is a somewhat ambiguous compliment, because a great many people would hold the view that the best Bill produced by this Government might still be a pretty bad Bill. I do not mean that. I think it is pretty good. I could put it better, perhaps, by saying that it is a very good example of Conservative—or "Tory" if the hon. Members opposite prefer it—social legislation. This Bill carries out part of the theme annunciated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in the Debate on the Address, when he said we on this side of the House were determined to establish a basic standard of life for all and, having done that, to set the people free. It does not fulfil the whole of that great theme, but it does do something to meet the first part of it. The House knows that it is beyond the power of any of the right hon. Members opposite to do anything to set the people free. There is nothing they would like less.
This really is an example of good Tory legislation, because it is building carefully upon existing foundations and developing existing framework a little further. The hon. Member for North-East Leeds (Miss Bacon), who made, if she will allow me to say so, a very charming speech, mentioned that she detected a difference in approach to this Bill between the two sides of the House; in particular between the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health and my right hon. Friend who followed him. She said one was all heart and the other all head.

Miss Bacon: I did not say that. I said one spoke with his heart and head and the other simply with his head.

Mr. Law: I accept the hon. Lady's correction. For all that, I think she is wrong. I would remind the hon. Lady of a Negro spiritual, with which she may be familiar, called, "All God's chillun got shoes." In that simple little song there occurs this line—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sing it."]—I will not sing it—" Everyone who talks about Heaven isn't going there." Everybody today who talks the loudest about their affection for the people of this country is not necessarily

more fitted to administer service of this kind than people who, perhaps, talk with a little less eloquence. The hon. Lady said she detected a difference in approach between the two sides of the House. I would have agreed, until I read the Bill. When I read in the White Paper that this scheme
entailed an extensive repeal of existing legislation
I expected to read on and to find that everything that had been done by previous Governments had been left out and that all the machinery set up previously ruthlessly swept away. But machinery set up by previous Tory and National Governments is being maintained, and I would say that this Bill is a real tribute to the social legislation of successive Conservative and National Governments in the past 20 years, from the Local Government Act, 1929, and to the Family Allowances Act, which was passed into law by the last Conservative Government.
That brings me to another point. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. A. Evans) made a very effective, modest and sincere maiden speech, and I certainly would not criticise it, because I enjoyed it as much as, I am sure, the whole House did. But before he addressed the House, the hon. Member for Bucklow had said, without knowing that the hon. Member for West Islington was to follow him, that at the by-election of West Islington, the hon. Member had trumpeted far and wide the thesis that it was a Labour Government who passed the family allowances legislation. The hon. Member for West Islington, when he came to speak, said—and this is the point to which I would particularly draw the attention of the House—that, whoever had passed the legislation, his constituents were firmly convinced that it was due to the Labour Government.
That seems to me to reflect a very odd state of affairs, because it has been the stock-in-trade of hon. Members opposite for a long time—and now it is about the only stock in trade left to them—to create a superstition—for it is nothing more than that—that the Governments between the two wars constituted a period of unremitting and relentless grinding of the faces of the poor. [Interruption.] That is what hon. Members mean when they talk all this poppycock—to use an expression that is hallowed by the Front Bench opposite—about 20 years of Tory


misrule. But having won one General Election on that, I can assure them that they will not win another. That horse is not going to run. Be that as it may, this Bill, based on Tory principles and following and developing Tory precedents, is about as a practical a recantation as it would be possible to find of these slanders against the Tory Party with which we are all familiar.
This Bill does, of course, represent a certain centralisation in the administration of this assistance service. I am not myself in favour of centralisation. I think that the more a Government is centralised, the less liberty there is; the more the processes of Government are diffused over the whole area of the community, the brighter the prospect for democracy; and, in general, I think that centralisation in Government is a bad thing rather than a good thing. But in this case, I think that there is no doubt that, so far as the expenditure of public funds on assistance is concerned, this is one of the exceptions that proves the rule, and I have no doubt at all that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the right step in this Bill.
Centralisation does bring with it certain dangers and there is the danger that a highly centralised service may lack the humanity and the personal touch of local authority services. For that reason I should like to enforce the plea that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Dorset (Mr. Digby) and my hon. Friend the Member for Abbey, Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) that the position of the pensions committees should be reconsidered. The Minister will agree that these committees do represent a vast fund of experience in these matters. He would agree that they have done most valuable work. They have considered thousands and thousands of cases and sometimes appeals have been made against their decision. I think I am right in saying that as far as London is concerned the Minister of National Insurance has in the main upheld the decisions of these Committees. It will be a very great pity if advantage can no longer be taken of this devoted service, and if this vast fund of experience just goes to waste. When the right hon. Gentleman comes to reply, I hope he will be able to give some indication that he is prepared to reconsider this matter between now and the Committee stage of the Bill.
I want to say just one word about the financial aspect of the Bill. From what I understand of the financial memorandum and what the Minister of Health said earlier, I do not imagine that this Bill represents any great additional burden but is just a transfer from one pocket to another—from the ratepayers' to the Exchequer. No doubt there will be some small increase in the charge, but I do not think any of us would criticise that in this particular case. I confess to a feeling of some slight uneasiness about the capital expenditure which is envisaged in Part II of the financial memorandum. I am not very clear—I do not think the Minister himself is very clear—when this capital development is likely to begin. In the financial memorandum it says that it is to take place during the next five years.
The proposals themselves are absolutely admirable. I am sure that the homes for old people are most desirable and essential in the long run, but what I am not clear about is—when there is any prospect of these homes, in fact, being built and the work on them being undertaken. The Minister of Health said in his opening speech, I think with perfect justice, that we were entitled to congratulate ourselves at this time of grave financial stringency that we are still concerned with developments of this kind, but I think there is some danger, unless the position is slightly clarified, if it goes out from this House that we can legitimately embark upon this capital expenditure because that would seem to be quite contrary to the advice which was given to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Minister for Economic Affairs, a week or so ago, when he said that it was necessary to cut down capital expenditure.
On the other hand, if this is not to begin for some little time to come that ought to be made clear, too, because otherwise the people of this country, and in particular the old people whose need is so very great, will feel that they have been deceived by the Debate this afternoon. In that connection might I reinforce the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson), who suggested that even if we cannot go on with the full scheme for the old peoples' homes at the present time then something should be done on an


ad hoc basis by the development of old buildings as has been done in Streatham, Kensington and other parts of London?
I would offer one more comment to the House, and then I will give way to the Minister. The Minister of Health said that he had been cudgelling his brains to find a suitable name for these old peoples' homes. I quite agree with him that the alternatives, that have been placed before him are not very satisfactory. I do not think that they are at all suitable. The right hon. Gentleman and the House may not be aware that there are already in existence in London and other parts of the country a number of old peoples' homes which are doing very good work. And may. I say that I am extremely glad there is to be cooperation between the authorities and these voluntary organisations. But some of these voluntary bodies have found no difficulty at all about names. I would like to tell the right hon. Gentleman what some of these homes are called. They are called "Churchill Houses." I would like to add that I have spoken to the old people who live in these homes, and they have no objection whatever to being thus associated with the greatest of living Englishmen.

9.32 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): This Debate began with a speech by the Minister of Health. In its matter, tone and temper it was a speech befitting a great historical occasion. Since then we have had a succession of speeches from the back benches on both sides and because of their constructive character we welcome them and take note of them, and we shall seriously and fully consider them.
What a pity that two grudging, carping speeches have come from the Front Opposition Bench. They indicate how far from the best of their own party those Tory leaders have wandered. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) took up the first 25 minutes of his speech without referring to the Bill, in the worst carping speech I have ever heard. We have just had the same from the right hon. Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law). All I can say is that I have no doubt that the people of the country will note the

tone and temper of these speeches, for the speeches really reveal what their authors would do if they were over here.
Since there has been some question about the history of the Bill, perhaps I might recall some of the recent history, which will be within the memories of many hon. Members who are here. In its present form, the Bill and other Bills make one great scheme. The process began one day in 1941 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) announced to the House that he was setting up a committee to examine the whole of the field of social insurance and allied services, and to report what should be their future. That was the first step, taken not by a Conservative Government, but under a Coalition Government, and under the inspiration and drive of Labour Members of that Government. There came the committee, and later the report. Perhaps I may recall—I am only doing this because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has done it—when the Beveridge Report came up for consideration in the House how the spirit and the temper of the speeches made by two members of the Conservative Party shocked everybody, and led our party into the Lobby for the first time against the Coalition Government. As a result of that Debate, raised by our own party, and in which I had the privilege of taking part, we had very quickly the White Paper and then the Bill to set up the Ministry of National Insurance.
The first of the series of five Bills, the Family Allowances Bill, was introduced during the Coalition Government by the first Minister of National Insurance, who is now the Lord Chancellor. It went through all its stages in this House, and then came the break up of the Coalition Government. In the last days of that Parliament, the Family Allowances Bill was allowed to go on the Statute Book by the consent of all the House. When I became Minister of National Insurance, there was no date in that Bill as to when it should commence. I had to fill in the date, and I filled it in as 6th August, 1945. The only contribution which came from the Opposition was that I was hasty in putting in that date. Beatrice Webb used to say that it took 30 years from the publication of a Report until that Report became embodied in an Act of


Parliament. The Beveridge Report was produced on 20th November, 1942, just over five years ago. One Bill, the smallest of the five, though not unimportant, was produced in the dying days of the Coalition Government. All the rest have been produced by this Government, and the complete scheme is being brought into operation next July, within five years of that Report. That is an achievement of which the Government are entitled to be proud.
Because there has been general agreement on all sides with the main provisions and indeed with the purpose of this Bill to end the Poor Law, the Debate has been very largely on points, not unimportant, but of detail. We are all agreed on the main provisions in the Bill and upon the main division it makes of functions. It transfers from the local authorities to a national authority the responsibility for the cash payments. This has been urged upon this House for very many years, particularly during the very bad days of the depression. The truth is that the burden of maintaining public assistance in some of the poorer authorities was crushing local government almost out of existence. Therefore, there grew up a very insistent demand that the responsibility, which pressed heaviest on Merthyr Tydfil and places like that, should be shared equally by the rest of the nation, and the only way it could be shared was by making it a national responsibility. Therefore, we transfer the responsibility for making cash payments from the local authorities to the nation, and now the burden will be equally shared by all the people. Other services which are in many ways the most intimate, often far more intimate and delicate than the cash payments, are left to the local authorities who are nearest to the people they will have to serve. That is the main division of functions in this Bill, and it has been accepted by practically every hon. Member who has spoken.
I want to say one or two words about how very important it is when we think about this Bill and its consequences not to think of it in isolation. It will come into operation next July on the same date as the National Insurance Act, and it is essential to realise that one of the effects of the National Insurance Act will be to take people out of public assistance who have been in it in the past. When the

National Insurance Act was under consideration it was represented that the day the Act came into operation it would have profound effects upon the whole structure of public assistance in this country. As to the problem of the staffs, it was represented to me that the new sickness rates provided in the National Insurance Act, when they come into operation next July, would, by one stroke, do away with half the work now done by public assistance authorities. I was told that half the present staffs are engaged in administering public assistance to supplement the inadequate sickness benefits under the existing National Health Insurance Acts. The result is that when the National Insurance Act comes into operation next July, one of its first consequences will be to lift out of the sphere of public assistance thousands of people who, in the past, have had to go there to supplement the completely inadequate benefits provided by the old scheme.
That will mean that under the new scheme there will be left behind two functions only: first, that of supplementing the benefits provided under the National Insurance Acts where those benefits are inadequate to meet all the needs of the persons concerned; secondly, there will be the very important function—one cannot overestimate its importance—of care by the Assistance Board so far as cash provision is concerned of the worst afflicted of all. Indeed, the main job to be done under the provisions of this Bill will be to care for those people whose lives are so afflicted that they will not come inside the insurance field at all.
Here I come to what has been the main theme in almost all the speeches. Realising that fact, we know that the success of this Bill does not depend only upon the Measure itself—though it is a good Bill—it depends even more upon the spirit in which it will be administered once it is passed by this Parliament. The cash side is to be administered by the National Assistance Board; indeed, one or two hon. Members have raised doubts as to whether the Board should be entrusted with this work. There was a time when I would have shared those doubts. As one who remembers 1934 and the beginning of the Unemployment Assistance Board, one of the best tributes I can pay to that Board is that it has overcome its bad beginnings. It was set


up, not by an act to develop our social services, but as an act of political spite. Therefore, I can think of no higher tribute to the Board than to say that it has recovered in the public esteem from the stigma attached to it in 1934 in all the areas of this country. Why? I think there are several reasons.
During the war the Government of the day entrusted to the Assistance Board the work of administering funds for the prevention and relief of distress. These funds were to help people who, by bombing and all the incidents of war, were suddenly and urgently in need. All this is relative to the question of whether the Assistance Board is capable of organising and administering a service in which urgency is one of the main factors. One cannot imagine more urgent cases than those which fell to be administered by the Board at the time of the bombing, and from every town in this country that suffered bombing there have come universal tributes to the way in which the Assistance Board carried out the prevention and relief of distress.
The second reason I think the Board has won a new place in the regard of the people was because of the way in which it administered the supplementary old age pensions. I have had tributes paid to it by the old age pensioners' associations, and, indeed, the figures speak for themselves. Until 1940 it was still possible for old people to go to the public assistance committee to have their pensions supplemented by public assistance, and a quarter of a million were being so assisted. The first week that the Assistance Board took over the supplementation of old age pensions, the number of applicants was one and a quarter million, which is a clear indication that in the minds of the people the stigma of the Poor Law did not attach itself to the Assistance Board.

Mr. W. Shepherd: The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. A. Evans) made what I thought was a very valuable suggestion, that it should not be called the National Assistance Board, but the Social Welfare Board. Is the Minister in favour of making that change?

Mr. Griffiths: I am not quite sure whether that would be desirable. The cash services will come from the National Assistance Board, and the welfare services

from the local committees. We can discuss the point later, but at first sight I do not think a change of that kind would be desirable. Indeed, it might lead to a confusion of functions which are otherwise clearly defined in the Bill. Because the spirit of the administration is so important, I am giving time to this aspect of the Bill.
Two kinds of scales are provided for in the Bill. There is, first, the general scale, and, secondly, the special scales for special classes of persons, in particular for the blind and the tubercular. Immediately the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, the first job to be done is to prepare scales and present them to Parliament for approval. The procedure is now well known, and has been laid down in the Bill. It is a familiar procedure. The initiative rests with the Assistance Board, which will produce drafts of the scales and submit them to me for my consideration. I will then submit them in draft form to the House of Commons. They are subject to affirmative Resolution, and before the scales come into operation the House will have an opportunity of considering them; indeed they cannot become operative until they have been approved by a majority of both Houses of Parliament. That means that there will be opportunities later for the scales to be very fully considered.
On Second Reading hon. Members will not expect me to make any promises, or give pledges, except the one undertaking that the Board and I as Minister, will take into consideration the suggestions which have been made. We are anxious that these scales shall be such as will commend them to the sense of fair play of the whole nation. Whatever the scales may be, I hope they will be satisfactory. In the field in which the Assistance Board will make cash payments after July, there will be an infinite variety of human needs to meet—such an infinite variety that I am certain it cannot be met by any general scale or special standard scales, however generous. It is, therefore, essential that from the beginning the Board should realise that they will not be able to fulfil their tasks adequately unless they exercise a wide measure of discretion in their payments over and above the standard scales. The Board have experience of that, as will be noted from the last Report, that for 1946, on the work of the Board, which shows that of the half-


million old age pensioners who now get supplementary pensions one-third are in receipt of discretionary allowances over and above the standard scales. It is quite clear that when we come to the field that will be left of the maimed, crippled, sick, and others with an infinite variety of needs, a wide measure of discretion will be of the greatest importance. We therefore provide in the Bill that the Board shall have full power to exercise discretion in every way. There have been indications in more than one speech in the Debate of how important it is that discretion shall be used by the Board.
Having made the scales, it will fall to the Board to administer the scheme. I wish to say a few words about its organisation. At the present time the Board have just under 300 offices of their own. We are building up the number of offices for the Ministry of National Insurance. We have now close upon 800, and we are hoping to have 1,000 offices for the Ministry by the time our new scheme comes into operation in July next. It is essential that the Assistance Board and the Ministry of National Insurance shall work in close harmony and association. Notwithstanding the difficulty of getting premises in these days, particularly centrally situated premises, in some of the most important towns, the Board and the Ministry will work in close co-operation. We have already arranged that if there be, as there will be, towns and areas in which the Assistance Board have no office of their own, then they will have an officer in the Ministry of National Insurance office who will be available there to those who wish to seek assistance from the Board. We believe that we shall be able, by the combined use of offices of the Board and of the Ministry of National Insurance, to get a nation-wide cover which will be reasonably adequate for the work.

Mr. Macpherson: Would the Minister say whether it is his intention to reduce the number of officers who are at present dealing with allowances of this kind? Are those in county districts to be merged with those in boroughs, etc. Will there be a great reduction in the number of officers?

Mr. Griffiths: I had intended to say a word about that subject. For the reasons I have indicated, it seems clear that the number of applicants is bound to be less

after next July because of the national insurance scheme. It is clear that for the residual classes the Assistance Board will not need as many officers to administer the scheme as there are public assistance officers at present. We believe that the Board itself will require a number of these public assistance officers. The Ministry of National Insurance will require some and local authorities will require others for their work. We do not think there need be any redundancy on any large scale; we believe it will be very small, because there will be need for these men in the services of the Board and my Ministry, or in the service of local authorities for other purposes. It must be remembered that this Bill extends and widens the responsibilities of local authorities themselves, which will require staff.
It has been emphasised to us how essential and desirable it is that the administration should be kept in touch with the people of the area. There is provision in the Bill for local advisory committees, which the Board will set up to advise them and we want them to be a link between the Board and its officers and the people whose needs they have to serve. We want these committees to be representative, and I give the assurance that they will contain representatives of the local authorities in the area which the committees will serve. That should meet the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) has put. The purpose of the advisory committees will be to advise; they will not adjudicate. It is provided in the Bill that when an officer of the Board has made a decision, and has decided for or against giving a grant in a particular case, and some one is aggrieved by that decision or by the amount to be paid, then the appeal will be, not to the advisory committee but to the appeal tribunal which is provided for in another Clause in the Bill. There are advantages in separating the purely judicial functions in relation to cases from the committees which will advise on the administration of the scheme itself. These appeal tribunals will listen to cases and will reach a decision, which will be final.
One or two hon. Members have raised the question of whether we ought not to provide in this scheme, as we do in the insurance schemes, for an appeal to an umpire against a decision of the local


tribunal. I ask hon. Members to think about that point again. The function of the umpire under the National Insurance Act is to decide on statutory provisions under that Act. Once the decisions are made by the umpire, they become binding on the tribunals. They then set up case law. We ought to think twice before we decide in this scheme to make decisions subject to a final decision by an umpire who will then build up a lot of case law which may be far more rigid than we want. Let us keep the discretion as wide as possible.
A number of other questions have been raised. One was that of a 24-hour service. It will be realised that a good deal fell to the responsibility of the Relieving Officer in the 24-hour service—the need for officers to be available at all times, day and night, to deal with cases of urgent need for a doctor, admission to hospital, or the tragic cases of lunacy. These duties are now to be transferred to the local authority, and will become their responsibility. The Board realise, however, that they must be ready to meet urgent needs and, in that sense, there must be a 24-hour service. We must learn from experience to what degree it will be required in the new setting of this Measure.
I am deeply grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken. It is always a very great pleasure in the House of Commons to listen to a Debate on a subject of this kind. Many hon. Members who have had years of experience with local authorities have made very good speeches in this Debate. I offer my thanks to every one, and I single out one speech only, because it was a maiden speech. I refer to the speech of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. A. Evans), who brought his experience of local government to bear on this subject. Many others who have worked in all kinds of voluntary organisations have put forward sound, constructive ideas. I hope the House will give a unanimous Second Reading to this Bill. We will carry it through Committee stage, all of us anxious to make it, if we can, an even better Bill. Tonight we are setting the coping stone on the work we have been doing for the last two years of building a comprehensive, unified, social insurance scheme. We have the Family Allowances Act, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries)

Act, the National Insurance Act, the National Health Service Act, and now we have the National Assistance Bill. Let me say to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that it may be that if they had been in power they would have done all this; but people would not believe it. I am certain that no Government but a Labour Government would have done all this in the last two years. I am proud to be a Member of the Government that has done this job.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL ASSISTANCE [MONEY]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. [King's Recommendation signified.]

[Mr. BUTCHER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to terminate the existing poor law and to provide in lieu thereof for the assistance of persons in need by the National Assistance Board and by local authorities, and to provide for other purposes (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act'), it is expedient to authorise:—
A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(i) Expenses (including expenses incidental to the giving of assistance) incurred by the said Board under the new Act—

(a) in giving assistance to persons over the age of sixteen whose resources (if any) which are taken into account, including any such resources of any dependants of theirs, are insufficient to meet their requirements and those of any dependants of theirs,
(b) in the provision and management of re-establishment centres and reception centres, and
(c) in making contributions to organisations maintaining such centres,
and any administrative expenses of the said Board incurred under or by virtue of the new Act;
(ii) any increase attributable to the new Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of salaries and allowances to the officers and servants of the said Board, and any expenses incurred under the provisions of the new Act relating to advisory committees and appeal tribunals;
(iii) contributions in respect of accommodation provided by, or by arrangement


with, local authorities under the new Act, being contributions payable for not more than sixty years and of the following amounts—

(a) seven pounds ten shillings, or in Scotland eleven pounds, in respect of a single bedroom,
(b) in respect of any other bedroom, not more than six pounds ten shillings, or in Scotland nine pounds ten shillings, multiplied by the number of persons for whom the room is intended;
(iv) any expenses of a Minister incurred in the exercise of default powers conferred by the new Act;
(v) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, which is attributable to amendments effected by the new Act in the said Act of 1936, being amendments providing that assistance grants and the value of accommodation, maintenance and services are to be left out of account in the calculation of means for the purposes of the said Act of 1936, and amendments relating to the determination of questions arising thereunder, to disqualifications for the receipt of pensions, to the date at which increases of pensions become payable, and to the suspension or resumption of pensions or their increase on a change of circumstances;
(vi) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under the National Health Service Act, 1946, or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, being an increase attributable to provisions of the new Act as to services to be rendered by local health authorities, as to ambulance services, and as to payments by Regional Hospital Boards in respect of accommodation and facilities provided in premises formerly being part of a workhouse;
(vii) compensation payable under the new Act to persons employed for the purposes of pension committees under the said Act of 1936;
(viii) the administrative expenses of any Government department incurred under the new Act.
B. The payment into the Exchequer of the amounts of reductions attributable to the new Act in the liabilities of any fund for arrears of benefits, pensions or allowances, and of the receipts under the new Act of the said Board or any Minister."—[Mr. bevan.]

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I would like to draw attention to paragraph A (iii), and to ask the Minister whether, in view of the way in which that paragraph is drawn, he will be prepared during the Committee stage to accept recommendations or to allow consideration of the question whether allowances may be paid over and above those

actually foreshadowed in the Bill. If he looks at the Resolution, he will see that it says:
(iii) contributions in respect of accommodation provided by, or by arrangement with, local authorities under the new Act,"—

It being Ten o'Clock The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

Ordered:
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders Nos. 46 and 47, Part II of the Local Government Bill committed [19th November] to a Standing Committee, shall be separated from the other provisions of the Bill and shall be considered by the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills; and that when the provisions committed to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills and the provisions committed to the other Standing Committee to which the remainder of the Bill shall have been committed, have been reported to the House, the Report stage of the Bill shall be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported to the House as a whole."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT [MONEY],

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes Of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to Exchequer grants to local authorities and grants by local authorities to other local authorities or other bodies, and the law relating to rating, valuation for rating and precepts to rating authorities and, among other things, for purposes connected with the matters afore said (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). it is expedient——
(1) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of a grant in any year to the council of any county or county borough in England and Wales or of any county or large burgh in Scotland, being a county, county borough or large burgh the rateable value for which in that year, calculated in accordance with the Act, is less than the standard rateable value for that county, county borough or large burgh for that year, calculated as aforesaid; so, however, that any such grant shall not exceed the relevant fraction of the amount of the difference.
In this paragraph, the expression 'the relevant fraction' means the fraction arrived at by dividing the relevant local expenditure, as defined in the Act, for the year in question by the sum of the following amounts, that is to say, the aforesaid amount of the difference and the product of a rate of one pound in the pound, calculated in accordance with the Act, for the county, county borough or large burgh for that year.


(2) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament to the council of any county or county borough in England and Wales or of any county or large burgh in Scotland—

(a) of transitional grants, calculated in accordance with the Act, for the year 1048–49 and for each of the four following years, in the circumstances laid down in the Act; so, however, that any such grant for the year 1949–50, 1950–51, 1951–52, or 1952–53 shall not exceed four-fifths, three-fifths, two-fifths or one-fifth, respectively, of any such grant for the year 1948–49;
(b) of a special grant calculated in accordance with the Act, for the year 1948–49 if any part of that year falls before the appointed day for the purposes of Part II of the National Health Service Act, 1946, or, as the case may be, of Part II of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947.
(3) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament under Subsection (1) of Section fifty-three of the National Health Service Act, 1946, and under Subsection (1) of Section fifty-three of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, to any local health authority of a sum equal to one-half of the expenditure in respect of which grants are payable under those Subsections, respectively, instead of an amount to be determined by regulations made under those Subsections, respectively.
(4) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of any sums required for the purpose of adjusting the grants mentioned in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Resolution by reason of any modification of the operation of the Act authorised thereunder in consequence of any alteration or combination of authorities or alteration of boundaries;
(b) of the expenses of local valuation panels and local valuation courts under the Act;
(c) of the remuneration of, and of the expenses incurred by, valuation officers under the Act, including the remuneration and expenses of persons employed to assist them;
(d) of any compensation payable under the Act to officers or servants of the Central Valuation Committee;
(e) of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Works as a consequence of the passing of the Act, including any expenses incurred by him under or by reason of any provision of the Act relating to the acquisition of premises;
(f) of benefits under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1946, payable by virtue of any provision of the Act to a person in the Civil Service of the Crown in respect of service otherwise than to the Crown; and
(g) of any administrative expenses incurred by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State under the Act."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Mr. Viant appointed a Managing Trustee of the House of Commons Members' Fund in pursuance of section two of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — POTATO RATIONING

10.2 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move,
That the Potatoes (Control of Supply) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 2402), dated 8th November 1947, a copy of which was presented on 13th November, be annulled.
The Order to which I now desire to draw the attention of the House makes very severe cuts indeed in one of the staple foods of the people, and, before we are asked to accept this order, I think we ought to be told what its effect will be on the people's diet. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the other day that, after this order, the total food available for the ordinary man or woman of every rationed or pointed kind, including bread and potatoes, will only be the equivalent of 1,600 calories a day. I want to ask the Minister what else he thinks will be available to the ordinary man and woman to make up for the cut in potatoes. By the ordinary man or woman, I mean people who do not have access either to canteens or restaurants. Those people are the majority of our fellow-countrymen, and, accordingly, it is of the utmost importance that we should know what their position is going to be if this order stands.
I ask the Minister to answer that question on the assumption—which I hope we can make for the moment, but which I could not put forward with any confidence—that there are no further cuts in our food supplies. Obviously, the figure of 1,600 calories must be very largely supplemented if conditions of life in this country are to be tolerable at all, and what is there available to make up for what we are losing under this order? The only two foods that are available in any quantity, and which are neither rationed nor pointed, appear to be fish and vegetables. From the returns of last year, it appears that the amount of fish available was well under 1 lb. per week per head


of the population—not a very large amount—and it appears that the amount of vegetables available last year was, approximately, 2 lb. per head per week.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food if he can give us any information with regard to the position of vegetables as a possible makeweight for the loss of potatoes. Some hon. Members opposite have quite properly, if I may say so, drawn attention to the need for price control. I apprehend, Mr. Speaker, that it would be out of Order to go into this matter, but I would just remark in passing that, however important that may be, what is even more important is to ensure that the maximum possible quantities are available to those who need them. Accordingly, any consequential control in that field will have to bear in mind that over-riding consideration.

Mr. Speaker: If I might interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I think he is going a little wide to start with, because, in the memorandum, the Order is limited to a distribution scheme for potatoes, and we cannot discuss a distribution scheme for vegetables and other things under this order.

Mr. Reid: I have said everything I wanted to say about that. I thought, Sir, that you might, perhaps, take the view tonight as this is of such overwhelming importance to the people of this country, while one must not stray out of Order, one might be allowed casually to make remarks in passing which, on an order of less importance, would be inappropriate. I shall try not to trespass more than I can help in that manner.
I am sure it is a matter of common ground that this is one of the most important steps which the Minister has yet taken in the course of his administration, and, therefore, although one does not want to over-elaborate one's argument, it is rather essential that the country should understand just where we stand. What is the present position with regard to supplies of potatoes? We find from the White Paper which was issued on food consumption levels in the United Kingdom that, last year, the total amount of potatoes consumed was about 5.6 lbs. per head per week. That, I apprehend, includes not only the adults, but also the children who, of course, eat less than the

average adult, as is shown by the Minister having allotted to them—I think quite properly—a smaller allowance than that which he allots to adults under this scheme.
Last year, we had the biggest crop of potatoes in our history, but it was only with difficulty that we got through at all. Again, I am not going into the question of what steps the Government took or failed to take at an early stage to produce the necessary potatoes this year although, I believe, that would, perhaps, be relevant from the point of view that lessons are to be drawn from what happened last winter with a view to making certain that something happens this year that will terminate potato rationing when the new crop comes on to the market. I think I might be allowed to say that there was no evidence of any very energetic steps being taken by the Government to provide in advance against the situation which has just arisen. This, Mr. Speaker, I think comes very close to the order. It was quite obvious by the early summer that this year there was a smaller acreage of potatoes, and there was a considerable risk at least that there would be a smaller yield per acre. I ask, what was the Minister doing when that became obvious? I ask that question, because this scheme in some ways might seem to be ill thought out and not to have been planned with any great deliberation, and as it was clear ever since bread rationing came into force that a potato rationing scheme might easily be required this year, and fairly obvious by the middle of the summer that it would be required this year, I want to ask the Minister what he was doing during that period to prepare for eventualities.
What happened to this crop? We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary on 12th November that the present crop available in Great Britain for all purposes amounted to 7.2 million tons, leaving 8 million tons in Northern Ireland. That may be a proper allowance. I do not know whether the Minister can perhaps get a few more from Northern Ireland, but obviously there is not a great deal of room for expansion there. Then we were told that of that 7.2 million tons there was not available for sale as food for civilian consumption in the United Kingdom 2.625 million tons—over 2½ million tons. I should have thought that that


was a fairly large figure, and I see that the Minister himself is having second thoughts about that because I have noticed in today's Press that a Ministry spokesman states that it is now being considered whether the smaller potatoes, which under this scheme were not available for human consumption, might be roped in to eke out the inadequate ration. I do not know why it is only being considered now. I should have thought this was a very obvious point, and if there had been any mature consideration it might have been considered long ago. However, perhaps the Minister will now tell us what he is going to do about it.
According to the Minister's calculation, the figure left for consumption for human food in Great Britain during this year was rather over 4½ million tons. Yet we were told at the Ministry's Press conference on 9th November that there were now—I say "now" because he referred to the date 23rd November—only available 2¼ million tons for human consumption. That is to say, half the crop available for human consumption has already disappeared. I beg the Minister to elaborate this point when he replies, because it does seem to require a good deal of explanation why half the available crop has already disappeared and is now unobtainable. The Minister, at his Press conference on 7th October, is reported as having said:
As the crop has not been lifted it is too early to say whether the crop will be as heavy as last year's.
Of course, it was too early to give exact estimates, although a very exact estimate was given in the Statistical Digest published a fortnight later. However, everybody knew at that stage that the crop would be far short of last year's and very far short of requirements. The only question was how far short. Therefore, if the Minister's statement on 7th October is to be taken at its face value, it indicates considerable negligence on the part of his Ministry in not keeping in touch with those who know about agricultural estimates.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): Perhaps, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to intervene. I do not know on what report he is relying, but certainly I can tell him right away that I made no such statement that the

crop might be as heavy as last year's. I entirely agree with him that that would have been an obvious fallacy. In October last I said nothing of the sort.

Mr. Reid: I do not think I said that. I read the right hon. Gentleman's words. We are under the difficulty, of course, that the Minister is accustomed to bringing out his information at Press conferences and I cannot get a full account of what he said. Nobody can. All one can do is pick up bits and pieces in various organs of the Press, which devote as much space as they can to what he says, but can give only a partial statement of what he says. No one can ever be sure whether his statements, reported in the Press, which are intended to be and are extremely important to the public, tell the whole story as the Minister intended it to be told. I wonder, in passing, whether he would consider putting full reports of his Press conferences in the Library, or making them available somehow, so that we can get a full and better account of what he has said than we get at present. What he is reported to have said was:
It is too early to say whether the crop will be as heavy as last year's.

Mr. Strachey: indicated dissent.

Mr. Reid: If the right hon. Gentleman did not say that, then I pass from it, be cause I have no means of telling what he said except by reading what was reported in the Press. I tried to pick out what he said. I do not see all the newspapers every day after his Press conferences, but I try to pick out those bits which appear to me to be interesting and valuable; and if they do not tell the whole story, or if they are not accurate, I cannot help it. I do the best I can. At any rate, whatever the Minister said on 7th October, he was not doing anything. Two days later, on 9th October, the Foreign Secretary knew all about it. The Foreign Secretary said two days later—and now I quote from the "Daily Herald," which, I trust, provides an accurate quotation—
'We are considering how to distribute our available potatoes,' the Foreign Secretary told a meeting of the Wandsworth housewives yesterday. 'I do not know whether we shall have to ration, but I would rather do that than let one section of the community have them all.'

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Reid: Certainly—but it was a straight tip to everybody to buy up as much as he could before the rationing scheme was introduced, a tip which, if my information is correct, was very largely followed, because of the time which the right hon. Gentleman allowed to elapse after that before he took any action. Here is a point with which the right hon. Gentleman really must deal. That statement was made on 9th October. The order was not introduced until 8th November. For four weeks after this plain indication had been given everybody was free to buy up anything he liked. Why was that? 'Why was the order not introduced at an earlier date?
We have been told—and I accept it—that for practical reasons it is highly convenient to introduce these orders on a Saturday night., But four Saturdays passed after this information had been given, before any steps were taken. Why was that? Was the order not ready? Seeing that this was likely to happen, had the Minister not prepared against the day when he would have to make a decision? Not only had the Foreign Secretary said this, but the House will remember that a good long time before the Minister acted the present Chancellor of the Exchequer told us about the reduction of calories to 2,700. We were told later that, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, he had in mind the effect of potato rationing. Yet even then there was no order. Perhaps the most charitable explanation is that the Minister was not ready. If he was not ready, it was gross negligence. If he was ready, what other ulterior motive induced him to withhold potato rationing? I think we ought to know.
I pass to the scheme itself. In this respect, I cannot do better than quote the Minister. Again, I regret that I have to quote a Press reference to what the Minister said at his conference, but I hope this one is accurate; perhaps he will tell me if it is not. The Minister is reported to have said:
The scheme was not really a rationing scheme in the technical sense. It was an allocation scheme comparable with the milk scheme.
I can see very clear differences between this and the milk scheme, as I am sure every hon. Member can, but I shall not elaborate that at the moment. The report goes on:

We cannot have a full-dress rationing of potatoes because of the technical impossibility of doing that. Instead, the Government has decided to make it an offence for retailers to supply more than 3 lb. per ration book per week. People who grow their own potatoes will not have their ordinary ration taken away from them. It will be quite impracticable to do this, and we want to encourage allotment holders to grow more potatoes.
I quite agree with that.
Asked whether there was any guarantee that everyone would get his or her 3 lb. per week, Mr. Strachey replied: 'There is no entitlement, as there is in a ration scheme proper where you have coupons, but there will be sufficient potatoes in the market for that.'
If we can be assured that that last sentence is correct, it does not matter, of course, what the technicalities of the scheme are. Indeed, we should be very happy that they should be as few as possible. However, I want to ask the Minister whether he is still satisfied that, until the new British earlies come on the market next year, there will be sufficient potatoes in the shops to enable every housewife to get her 3 lb. per week if she presents her book. I observe that on 19th November, in a Written Reply, the Minister said:
It is not possible to introduce a scheme guaranteeing shopkeepers specific allocations of potatoes. We will, however, remedy local deficiencies by sending supplies to recognised wholesalers in the district."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 181.]
Is the Minister still satisfied that he has enough supplies in reserve to ensure that, by means of this method which he has adopted, enough potatoes will be in the shops for housewives to get their 3 lbs. per week without finding too many green-grocers sold out before they come to one who has potatoes left? Under this scheme, there is naturally the risk that certain shops may be sold out. I hope the Minister can assure us that, in his view, these shops will be so few as not seriously to hamper the housewife in her pursuit of potatoes. The next claim made for rationing schemes is the claim of equality. The Minister has, quite properly, not made that claim in this case, because obviously both from the point of view of justice and of practical enforcement, it is essential for growers to be entitled to eat their own potatoes without restriction—nothing else could or should be imposed.
Then the Minister went on to deal with special classes of the community, and I should like to ask him to say a word about them. I take, first, the canteens, which are to get 12 oz. of potatoes per meal. Canteens, quite properly, get more of other foodstuffs than the ordinary person does, and, therefore, I assume that the Minister would not give them more potatoes in the present stringency than he considers absolutely necessary to provide a good, nourishing meal. I take it, therefore, that he considers 12 oz. of potatoes necessary to produce a good nourishing meal; otherwise, he would not have given them so much. That means that the ordinary person can have only four such meals per week, because four times 12 oz. is 3 lb. Is that the position? If it is not, I should like a word of explanation.
Then we come to the children. Again, quite properly, the Minister is allowing 8 oz. of potatoes per school meal. That is an extra 2½ lb. a week to each schoolchild who gets a meal. But can he make any provision for those numerous children who cannot get such meals, or for times when the others cannot get them? There must be a great number of children in this country—I do not have the figures at my finger tips—who cannot get benefit from this. Is there any possibility of these children getting some countervailing advantage? The Minister would not have given the 2½ lb. to the children who get the school meals unless it was necessary for their health. I agree that it is necessary, but what is to be done for the other children?
I have proceeded up to this point on the footing that the Minister is to maintain the 3 lb. allowance right up to the time when the new crop of British earlies comes on to the market in sufficient quantities to supply the public demand—at least to the extent of 3 lb. But such information as one can get begins to throw a certain amount of doubt about that. I am not going to express my own opinion; I am going to quote a sentence from an impartial and well-informed weekly, the "Economist" [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members do not agree, they can say what they like later. I ask the Minister whether he

considers there is any foundation for this statement:
Even at this present low level of rationing, supplies only just cover consumption, and the chances are the ration will have to be further reduced.
I hope that that is not right. The House would welcome a statement from the Minister on his views on the question. I think I am on safe ground in saying that whatever be the chances of a reduction of the present ration, there is no hope that I can see of any increase. We are faced therefore with a shortage of nearly 50 per cent. of our requirements, because if the demand last year was 5.6 lb. per head per week, it was going up and if the potatoes had been available I have no doubt that we should have reached a consumption of 6 lb. this year. We are to get only half.
It would not be very relevant on this occasion to consider how that terrible situation has come about, and the extent to which it may be due to bad weather or to lack of foresight or negligence on the part of the Government. On a suitable occasion we shall certainly have something to say on the latter point, and we shall certainly have to maintain that the Government are to a very large extent, but not wholly, responsible for the position. Whoever is responsible and whatever the explanation, the damage has been done, and, as the shortage is so extreme, I agree that there is no way of coping with this situation apart from some form of rationing or restriction. I agree with that because of the extremity of the shortage. We have maintained from this side of the House and still maintain that where you have shortages of 5 to 10 per cent., rationing is not the right way of dealing with it. It can be better dealt with by other voluntary methods of restriction. But in this case the shortage is so much greater than any we have yet had to contemplate in any of our staple foods that different considerations apply, and therefore we agree that some measure of restriction is required.
The next question which would logically follow would be whether this scheme is the right scheme. The scheme has very obvious imperfections. The newspaper from which I quoted a moment ago set out some of these imperfections in considerable detail, but I am not going to


quote that tonight, because I apprehend that no public service would be done by expatiating on the imperfections of this scheme. If the Ministry have not been able to produce a better scheme than this by this time, it is not very likely they can do it now. Therefore we have just got to put up with this scheme, whatever we may think about it.
The purpose of our raising this matter tonight is to get from the Minister something which I think the country is entitled to. I do not think the country can be expected to put up with this very serious situation unless it is given the fullest and frankest explanation of the situation. I ask the Minister, therefore, for a full and frank and realistic statement of the present position. For too long the Minister has marred many of his speeches by irrational optimism and for too Ions; his disclosures of information have been scrappy and incoherent. I trust that our putting down this Prayer will give him an opportunity tonight of taking a new and better line in his publicity. I do ask him to give us that statement as soon as he feels he can, in order that those who may follow me on both sides of the House may be able to put forward their suggestions in light of the full facts of the situation, and not merely in light of those bits here and there which I have tried to piece together as well as I could, but which still leave a good many points unelucidated.
To end on a practical note, because I have tried to be practical throughout—

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House an indication of the distribution scheme which he has in mind?

Mr. Reid: I was just saying that I did not think it would be in the public interest to draw pointed attention to many of the deficiencies of this scheme. If you draw pointed attention in this House to the deficiencies in a scheme with which we must put up—because plainly the Minister is not able to take back this scheme, and give us another in a reasonable time, it has taken him so long to give us this one—it is not in the public interest to draw attention to loopholes. Less still, would it be in the public interest to do it in the roundabout way which the hon. Member suggests.

Mrs. Middleton: On a point of Order. I understand that this is a Prayer to annul the order. I now understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want the order annulled. Where does the right hon. and learned Gentleman stand in relation to this order.

Mr. Speaker: A Prayer to annul is a peg on which one may hang an objection to the scheme. It is the normal way. In Committee we very often move to reduce a sum by £100 as a peg on which to hang an objection. This is a normal way, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in Order. He did indicate that we were going to talk all night with no decision. I hope that is not so.

Mr. Reid: I doubt whether the hon. Lady has been a very regular attender at the Prayers which take place at this time of night.

Mrs. Middleton: I think I can claim that I have been here when Prayers have been under discussion more often than the right hon. and learned Gentleman has.

Mr. Reid: I have certainly been here on a number of occasions when this procedure was used for the precise purpose for which we are using it tonight. If the hon. Lady has been here so often, I am surprised at her interjection.
I wish to ask three special questions. I have put a number of points to the right hon. Gentleman with which I hope he will deal. These three points stand out as most important, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with them with special particularity. First, is the right hon. Gentleman reasonably confident that housewives will, while the allowance is maintained, be able to get their 3 lb. a week? I ask that because if he can give an answer, as I hope he can, in the affirmative, it will save a great many attempts to get round this scheme. If people can feel reasonably confident that the scheme will last out, there will be less temptation to try to get round it. Secondly—and this is not the same point—is the right hon. Gentleman reasonably confident that the allowance of 3 lb. can be maintained?

Mrs. Leah Manning: That is the same.

Mr. Reid: It is not the same point. It is possible under this scheme for the official allowance to remain at the 3 lb., and for people to go to the shops and find that they are sold out. Therefore, there are two points. Will the 3 lb. remain, and, while it remains, is the Minister certain the shops will not be sold out. They are quite separate points. Lastly—and I ask this with some hesitation—can the Minister give any indication of anything we can get to make up for the lost potatoes? He has a number of foods in store in large quantities—

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman would be out of Order if he indicated that. It would be going quite outside the Prayer.

Mr. Reid: If that is out of Order, perhaps it is in Order for the Minister to give a general indication whether there is anything pleasant to come or not. I do not think that would be going too far.

Mr. Mitchison: Is it in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to anticipate Christmas in that way?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think I can, anyhow.

Mr. Reid: I must say that I am a little surprised at the spirit of levity with which a large number of hon. Members on the back benches opposite appear to contemplate this question.

Mrs. Braddock: It is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Reid: I do not think that their constituents would think that they were being very properly represented if they saw the way some Members on the opposite side are behaving tonight.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Baker White: I want to refer to two matters under this order. The first is whether the Minister could have known at an earlier date that there was going to be such an acute shortage, which might have meant a different order at an earlier date. The second is whether the system of control laid down under the order is going to work at all in its present form. I will make my position quite clear. I believe that the present order is unworkable, but that it is possible to make it workable. I believe the Minister,

if he had shown foresight, could have seen months ago that an acute shortage was probable, and I do not know now if it is not too late.
Let us go back to the spring of this year and consider what the position then was. The Ministry of Agriculture estimates showed that bad weather and floods had brought about a fall in the potato acreage planted. The floods were worse in that very important potato-growing area of the Fenlands. On the Ministry's own estimate, this was bound to result in a fall in the crop of about 660,000 tons, on a normal yield. I would like to emphasise that word "normal." It should have been obvious to anyone who took any notice at all of the weather over the period April to September, or who took the elementary precaution of looking at the yield per acre of the early potato crop, that it would not be a normal yield but something much below it. As far back as June, it was quite obvious that our potato crop on a decreased acreage must be well below the average. I submit that it should not have been difficult at that date to foresee the danger of a heavy short-fall. We got on to July, and on the first day of that month, we had a Debate on food. The Minister had a great deal to say about the iniquities of the Opposition but neither he nor his Parliamentary Secretary had anything to say about potatoes, or of the likelihood of this order. In the concluding passages of his speech, the Minister used these words:
I am perfectly sure that this country need have no doubt whatever of its ability to obtain an ample food supply in the coming years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 1184.]
I would probably be out of Order if I referred to the cuts in food which have taken place since that date, but the Minister even then should have seen the forthcoming shortage of potatoes. Did he not realise that the crop was maturing in a bone-dry soil.

Mr. Austin: On a point of Order. Your Ruling earlier, Mr. Speaker, will be within the recollection of the House, namely, that this order refers only to the distribution of potatoes. I would submit that ever since the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) has been speaking, his speech has referred to the crop of potatoes, and nothing else.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will leave that to me. I will try to watch the position as well as I can.

Mr. Baker White: In that Debate in July I was fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and I did say something about potatoes. I said:
…the Minister must face up to the real possibility of an acute shortage of potatoes in the autumn."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 1185.]
I did not have any of the inside special information which the Minister had from his officials all over the country. I come now to the scheme of control of supplies laid down in this order. I had to paint that picture first, because we must understand what the position was when the order was introduced. Paragraph 2 of the order imposes a statutory liability upon the potato retailer to serve anyone and everyone with potatoes, provided they present an unmarked ration book. It does not matter if they are regular customers, casual customers, or shop crawlers, as the trade calls those who come from outside districts, all must be served if potato supplies are available. That is laid down quite clearly under this order.
Under this order, at the same time, the retailer has no entitlement to supplies, although the retail trade is being called upon to shoulder the whole responsibility for consumer distribution. There is not a proper retailer allocation of potatoes under this order. The trade asked for that, but the Minister turned it down flat. I want to make it quite clear how the retailer stands in this matter, and I will quote the words of someone who is in a position to know, that is Mr. T. D. Matkin, the National Secretary of the Retail Fruit Trade Federation, the federation which is to handle potatoes through their federated retailers. He said:
It is well that the retailers' position in the scheme should be fully understood. Let me repeat that he has no entitlement to supplies. Ministerial support takes the form of an authority to buy—a piece of paper which will be valid from 14th December, 1947. But with the paper in his possession there is no guarantee that he can get supplies even from his regular dealer. Ministerial aid is restricted apparently to assisting any trader who finds difficulty in proving that he is a bona fide trader—his Food Office or Area Potato Supervisor will help him.
I hope the Minister will deal with that point which is raised by the National Secretary of the Federation. I put this

question to the Minister—he has on similar orders recognised the need for proper entitlement by the retailer, as is the case with oranges, bananas, tomatoes, and some imported fruits, and these allocation schemes are operating well. Why does he, under this order, refuse the entitlement asked for in the case of potatoes? I venture to suggest that there is still time to put that right, because I believe that in the absence of the machinery that gives the retailer his fair share the scheme is foredoomed to failure.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I want to submit at the outset that the proper basis for an allocation or ration scheme for potatoes ought to be in subdivisions of one stone. I make that submission because retailers' maximum prices for potatoes are fixed by the Ministry on a basis of 7 lb. and because the housewife is used to buying her potatoes in stones, half stones and quarter stones, and not on the basis of 3 lb. [An HON. MEMBER: "5 lb."] I want to ask how the unfortunate shopkeeper is to fix prices with an allocation of 3 lb. on a basis of controlled retail prices of, for example, 7 lb. of Golden Wonder at 10d. or 7 lb. of Kerr's Pinks, at 9d. Every endeavour, I submit, should have been made to have secured an allocation, not at 3 lb. but at 3½ lb. per head of the population.
Everyone knew that the yield of potatoes was going to be very much down this year. The Minister himeslf, speaking in the House on 10th November last referred to the 1946 crop, which as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) has reminded the House, was a record one. The Minister said that the crop was short unquestionably, and we were just able to make it last without imposing a rationing scheme. Then, in the same Debate, he went on to say that it was clear as the very hot summer went on that there was danger of a short crop this year. We began, he said, to take steps to restrict the off-take, and so consumption of potatoes, as early as 10th August. The same night that he made this statement, the Prime Minister at the Mansion House—the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food had left in order to come to the House to participate in the Debate—had said he was impressed by the fact that we


had nearly three million tons of potatoes more than we had in 1939. There is nothing inconsistent really in this statement, but it hardly lay in the mouth of the Prime Minister to make a statement of that kind when the Minister was saying in this House, as he did later in the same speech, that the crop year of 1947 had been characterised by the lowest yield since 1931.
I think it is a great pity that the House of Commons was not sitting in September and that we were not able in September to advise the Minister about the serious impending shortage of potatoes. Everyone who grows potatoes knew in August that it was going to be an appallingly short crop; certainly by the beginning of September we were very alarmed at the position. I submit that the Minister should have seen the red light in time to have made an allocation of 3½ lb. a head, and I suggest that this might have been done with effect from the 1st September.
I want, if I may, quite briefly to give the House the basis of my calculations. We know that the consumption, including consumption by the Services and for export and so on, for the month of July was 512,000 tons and for the month of August it was 408,000 tons, so that by the end of August we had consumed, out of the 1947 crop—that which we are going to eat this year—920,000 tons. That left us 43 weeks. I want to say here that my figures are necessarily rough because they are balancing the half ration to the holders of green ration books against the double ration for heavy workers and expectant mothers, and I have no means of knowing how many expectant mothers there will be during the year, and therefore I cannot make an exact calculation, but on the assumption that those two roughly balance themselves an allocation of 3½ lb. per head of the population for 43 weeks gives 3,722,000 tons. The Minister's own figures for seeds, chats, and potato powder, comes to 1,722,000 tons; the Minister's figure for shrinkage, waste and consumption on the farms comes to 790,000 tons; five-sixths of the Minister's figure for Army export and Service requirements—five-sixths because already two months of these requirements have been consumed in July and August—comes to 94,000 tons, a total of 2,606,000

tons, which together with the figures for July and August which the Minister then knew, and the estimated consumption of 43 weeks at 3½ lb. per head of population comes to 7,248,000 tons. On that figure he could have made his allocation from the 1st of September at 3½ lb. per head.
There is another aspect of this matter to which I want to refer quite briefly and that is to what I believe are hidden reserves. It is clear from the official figures that by 23rd November of this year 2,281,000 tons of the 4,400,000 tons will have been consumed, which leaves only 2,172,000 tons plus 80,000 tons we are going to get from Northern Ireland for consumption in the next 7½ months. These figures are quite astonishing. They mean, if they are to be relied upon, that during the past four and a half months we have consumed more than we have left for the remaining 7½ months of the year. I do not think these figures can be relied upon because there are pretty large hidden reserves. When the Foreign Secretary on 10th October ventured to give away Cabinet Secrets by saying there was great debate as to whether there should be potato rationing or not, all the housewives got alarmed and many of them put away bags of potatoes and started storing them against the days when supplies would be short.
But there is another aspect of this hidden reserve to which I want to draw the Minister's attention. I believe there is a substantial reserve in small farms up and down the country, and I do not think it should be difficult for the Minister to compute the size of that reserve. I do not know the figures for England and Wales, but I do know in Scotland before the war there were 14,000 potato growers registered as such with the Potato Board. These figures could be checked perfectly well against the last season's acreage payments, and I believe it would be found that the figures of potato growers for last year were substantially in excess of the prewar figures, and that excess is mostly small men who did not grow before the war, and whose contribution has no real effect on the total amount for consumption in the country. I believe that the registered growers before the war were the people upon whom we relied for the potatoes going into the shops, and that the smaller men have in fact been receiving a subsidy to eat their own potatoes.


These small scattered stocks were not worth netting when the supplies were adequate, but I believe they would be worth tracking down and drawing in now. I believe that now is the time to secure these hidden reserves for the legitimate market, and if the Minister cannot secure them the black market will.

11.1 p.m.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): We understood that our purpose tonight was to resist on this side of the House a motion to annul this order, but we have heard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) that that is not really his intention. We cannot but feel that the Opposition tonight is, in the words of the poet:
Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike.
That is a position which I am not surprised to see them take up, for, of course, much as I am sure they might like to represent themselves as standing in the position of telling the country that they were against potato rationing, they do realise that, and their retreat tonight shows it—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Retreat from what?"]—From their Motion to annul the order, of course.

Mr. Dray son: Can the Minister suggest any other way in which we can discuss this particular order?

Mr. Strachey: It is not my business to make suggestions to the Opposition as to how they should conduct their business, but they have not in form proposed the annulment of this order and the abolition of potato rationing today because they realise that if they did so they would open themselves to the very serious charge of exposing the country to the exhaustion of its potato supplies, which would indeed be the most reckless thing we could do today. So we come back to the position they have put to us on several occasions in this House already: that potato rationing-is (a) wrong; (b) brought in too late; (c) the scale of allocation is too high; (d) that it is too small. All these charges have been made [Interruption.] Did I hear a member of the Opposition ask me to think clearly? They have made four contradictory statements, one on top of the other. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Prayer asked for figures, which was a perfectly legiti-

mate thing to ask for and which I will give him; but I must warn him that these figures which I shall give him are not exactly the same as those which have been in his possession up to now. We know the acreage, but we have to work on estimates of crop yields which are furnished to me by the Minister of Agriculture, and he cannot give exact figures of crop yield at this date. It will be some weeks before we will have an actual census of the stock of potatoes available, and then we shall be able to have considerably harder figures.
The latest estimates of crop yield I can-give to the House this evening are unfortunately less favourable than the ones which we had some weeks ago. The figures are fairly complicated, but I will give the salient ones. It is estimated that, out of this year's crop, there is available for consumption in Great Britain some 6,811,000 tons of potatoes—that is the total available altogether for consumption, and I use the word to mean for seed and other purposes. Of that amount, no less than 1,193,000 tons must be preserved for seed. Ten thousand tons, a very small quantity, have to be preserved for seed export to special areas to which we have to keep up these exports. This is an enormous reduction which we have made in these exports, for, if anybody thinks we are exporting an unnecessary amount, I would point out that two years ago our seed exports of potatoes were no less than 148,000 tons. The House will see that we have cut this figure considerably. The small potatoes unusable for human consumption are estimated at 463,000 tons, which shows again that very great efforts are being made to bring into human consumption the very maximum number of such potatoes as are available. Then we must make our normal allowances for shrinkage and wastage, including use on farms. This is estimated at 722,000 tons. In addition, there are exports of ware potatoes for human consumption, which are down to 10,000 tons and almost exclusively for the Services abroad, and 30,000 tons required for priority processing into processed potato foods. All that makes a total of 2,428,000 tons, leaving available for human consumption 4,383,000 tons. Of this we have consumed 2,281,000 tons, leaving in our hands today 2,102,000 tons. These are our latest figures. They differ from the


ones that have been before the House previously because the estimates are different; but they are the latest estimates -which the Ministry of Agriculture can furnish to us. This is the reason—and this has been before the House on a previous occasion—for the necessity of this order. I do not doubt but that everyone on this side of the House realises the very great gravity of this order, and of the painful necessity of enforcing it because, unquestionably, the occurrence of this very light crop of potatoes this year is a very great disaster for this country, and no one on this side of the House wishes to deny that.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the annulment of this order asked me what the effect would be on calories. I think I have given this to the House before, but I will repeat it. The actual reduction is 70 calories per person per day. It seems a small figure, but I think, to be perfectly frank, that it underestimates the effect. Although the calorie content is small, potatoes are a very important filling food and psychologically, if not physiologically, I would agree the loss of calories, though small in proportion, underestimates the seriousness of the loss of that quantity of potatoes in the diet. The right hon. and learned Gentleman accused me of not disclosing information sufficiently, and then promptly passed to attack my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for disclosing too much information. I do not think any great harm was done by that statement. Nor was my right hon. Friend the only Member of the Government to draw attention to the seriousness of the potato situation. That was a quite inevitable thing to do. Before the actual scheme could be introduced, the trade had to be consulted. That is perfectly right and proper, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman and hon. Members opposite would be the first hon. Members opposite would be the first to object—and rightly—if we had not consulted the trade. It had to be done on a large scale, and any idea of a possibility that such a scheme could be kept secret was, of course, quite impossible.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me a series of questions in which, I think, he did make clear the distinction he had in mind between firstly, whether

sufficient potatoes would be available to meet the present allowance, and, secondly, whether the present allowance would be maintained to the end of the potato year. To the first question he asked, I can answer "Yes." We shall make sufficient potatoes available through the chain of distribution to meet the allowance. I am perfectly well able to give that assurance. To the second question, I would say that as figures are altering—and are bound to alter from week to week—on the estimate of the yield, it is impossible to say what will be the final availability of potatoes, and, therefore, the final amount of distribution which can be given over the potato year—at any rate until we can take the actual census of the stock in hand. While we are still dealing with yields it is impossible to give a definite statement of the amount of stock which we have available, and I should be deceiving the House if I said we could give that.
I must warn the House that, as the figures I have given show, the latest estimate of yield has been worse, rather than better, than the previous estimates. The availability through the year—in the spring—will, of course, be affected by the import of new potatoes and whether we are able to obtain imports of old main-crop potatoes from other countries. There is a possibility of some from Poland, for example, at the moment. A small purchase has been made in South Africa. We are, of course, making every attempt to import the maximum quantity we can.
Another figure quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that in which he contrasted last year's use of potatoes by the population of 5.6 lb. per head contrasted with the present usage of 3 lbs., suggesting that that meant consumption had been cut by half. The position is not quite as bad. That figure of 5.6 lb. contrasts not with the 3 lb. allowance to the domestic consumer, but with the overall allowance which, allowing for use in canteens, is 3.25 or 3¼lb., which is what the present allowance works out at.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I ask one question? The Minister mentioned the yield. Surely he does not suggest the estimate of yield can vary much? Does he not mean that the estimate of wastage of the crop varies? After all, the crop has been in for some time now.

Mr. Strachey: No, the Ministry of Agriculture have just made a revision of their estimates, and they are of yield.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The Minister said they would vary in future from week to week—that it was not yet a final figure.

Mr. Strachey: We are still working on estimates of yield, simply taking the acreage and adding up the average yield. Until the potatoes are in our hands we cannot make an estimate of the actual tonnage available. That is the difference. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) alleged—and this is a point I should like definitely to correct—that the retailer is being put in an unfair position by having the obligation to provide his customers each with the stipulated allowance, while the wholesaler is put under no obligation to supply the retailer. That is not so. There is simply the statutory prohibition on the retailer not to supply more than 3 lb. a week to each customer; but he is not put under an obligation, and consequently there is no entitlement to the customer; just as there is no obligation on the wholesaler to supply that particular retailer with a particular entitlement of potatoes. Otherwise, I would agree that the retailer would have been put in an unfair position.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) suggested that the Prime Minister and myself—although he did say later that we were not in contradiction—were somehow wrong in stating on the same occasion the earlier estimates, which I gave and which I have given again tonight, and the Prime Minister's statement that we have 3,000,000 tons of potatoes more this year than we had in a typical pre-war year. That is a simple statement of fact. It is, I think, an important statement to notice, because it does show that all these accusations which are made—but never pressed, because they cannot be pressed—of some laxity on the part of the Government in seeing that the maximum potato crop was grown are unfounded. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, surely, must be congratulated that, as hon. Members have said repeatedly tonight, in spite of a disastrously adverse potato year, in spite of the fact that we have had one of the lowest yields there has ever been, in spite of the fact that the acreage which

could be planted was cut down by the frost and floods of last spring, in spite of all these adverse factors, coming one on top of another, he was able to produce 3,000,000 more tons of potatoes than before the war. That is a simple statement of fact.
It does not mean that enough was produced. We realise that. It does mean that for this year the most strenuous efforts must be made—in my opinion, and in the opinion, I know, of all my colleagues—to produce a far greater supply. It is not the case that last year's—the 1946—crop was a particularly good one. The yield was only about average. It was very near the statistical average of the last 10 years, as a matter of fact; but the crop was large, and we had a fairly ample supply. I think we should make the very greatest efforts. I appeal, as I know my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture does, to the whole farming community and to the agricultural workers of the country to plant the very maximum acreage this year, so that whatever the yield is next year we shall have a crop which will supply the country.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: And an appeal to the allotment holders.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, and the allotment holders. I am grateful for the reminder. They can rely on us. We shall supply the necessary seed. We shall not in any circumstances yield to the temptation to use for consumption potatoes which can be planted and used for seed, even if they would ease the position. That would be a suicidally short-sighted policy. Seed will therefore be available. Even if the yield of potatoes is high next year and there is a surplus over and above human consumption which can be used for stock food, there will be no financial risk to the grower. We shall buy the potatoes, whatever quantity is produced. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will assure the agricultural community of that. We shall take the most strenuous steps to see that a really ample supply of potatoes is available next year.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Before the Minister sits down, will he deal with the suggestion I made that, seeing how badly


things were going, on or about 1st September he might have imposed an allocation of 3½ lbs. per head?

Mr. Strachey: That is a point which has been made several times—that rationing was too late. The short answer is this—and I think the hon. Member recognises it from the date he mentioned—that in the earlier part of the potato year rationing is quite impossible because it would be rationing potatoes that do not keep and it would result in almost pure waste. As the year goes on, that factor diminishes, though it does not disappear. The other factor is the almost insuperable difficulty of rationing or allocating, which is a more scientific term. This is not a true rationing scheme, but a scheme of controlling the supply to the consumer of such potatoes as come into Ministry hands and we are satisfied that the scheme was introduced at the earliest practicable moment. Of course, if that had not been so, it is perfectly true it would have been better to do it earlier, but that was impracticable for these two main reasons.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Would the Minister deal with one point? Why is it impossible to force on wholesalers an obligation to the retailers, knowing how badly wholesalers have behaved in the past in many of the markets; and is my right hon. Friend not committed already to deal with this matter?

Mr. Strachey: To do that would mean recasting the whole scheme of allocation and tying the consumer to a particular shop. This would be a lot to do, but it is possible, though difficult, to do it administratively, and I do not rule it out as a possible eventuality.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. York: These food crises always follow the same plan. First of all, we have the Minister saying that there is going to be no shortage; then we have the Minister letting out the fact that there is a shortage, which is then denied, and then the Minister is sacked. There is a slight difference here—the Minister, we know, is going to be sacked later on. Perhaps that accounts for the right hon. Gentleman's reply tonight, which shows he is not his usual confident self. I consider that my right hon. and learned Friend let the

Government off far too lightly with the responsibility, which I believe is almost wholly on their shoulders, for the present state of potato supply. As my hon. Friend said, the farmers knew perfectly well at the end of August there was a very great shortage in supplies. We all knew that the yield was exceptionally low and the Government knew that the acreage was also very low. So it was almost inevitable that the crisis must occur within a space of a few months from the date the potatoes commenced to come in.
This, to me, is a typical example of the workings of Socialism, a typical example of trying to control all sides and ends of production and distribution in this country. No better example is required than the muddle which the Government have made over the whole business of producing potatoes in this country. Let me examine for one moment the Government's action in this matter. I maintain that their whole policy towards the potato production of this country is one of the causes of the present crisis. I cannot go too deeply into the matter—[Interruption]—but I will go very much more deeply into it if there are any more interruptions like that—[AN HON. MEMBER: "You cannot blackmail us."]—I cannot blackmail hon. Members, but I can keep them up all night. I have just come back from a by-election at which I have been holding the fort, so I can talk for a considerable time. By-elections are good practice for that.

Dr. Morgan: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Member so far has dealt mainly with the question of production. This order, surely, deals with distribution. Can the hon. Member be kept within the terms of the Motion?

Mr. York: Is it not necessary to examine production before one comes to distribution? I was going on to examine production briefly, as I have said and I still maintain that the way the Government have handled the price structure is one of the main causes of the shortage today. If hon. Members opposite would only cast their minds back to the February-price review of this year, they would see that no encouragement was given to increased production, and that, in fact, there had been potential discouragement in respect of the 1948 crop. When the new


prices were brought out in April, an increase of only 9s. a ton was put forward.

Dr. Morgan: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I suggest to you that the hon. Member is out of Order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member must leave that matter to me.

Mr. York: When the crisis prices were brought forward in April, there was only a 9s. rise. If the House would only realise that the cost of growing an acre of potatoes is £40 or more, they would realise that with an average of seven tons an acre—

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. For the guidance of future speakers, can I be informed whether it is in Order on this Prayer to speak on production?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I certainly think the question of why the shortage has arisen is not very relevant. Certainly, it cannot be gone into in detail.

Mr. York: I was trying to pass over this matter hurriedly, but I have to take it into account in my argument to develop the point I am going to make. The interruptions which I am receiving make it extremely difficult for me; and, if I may say so with respect, for you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to follow the argument I am pursuing. If the House will let me go on with the argument, I might make it clear that I am not transgressing the Rules of Order. I am only making the point that the prices given for the acreage this year, the prices offered for production, were not adequate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is now transgressing my Ruling. I said that the reasons why the shortage had arisen were not very relevant. The hon. Member, as I understand it, is suggesting that because the prices were not put at some figure or other in April, that was the reason for the shortage. If so, that is a detail not relevant to the present Order.

Mr. York: I am sorry. I will leave that point and I will now go on to a further point which really does have some

relevance, if I can keep it within that rather narrow Ruling. Unless we get the basis upon which potatoes are produced somehow or other into the minds of the Government, we are not going to get potatoes this year, next year, or ever. It is essential that the Government should realise something about the economics of potato production. Hon. Members opposite seem anxious to interrupt me, although they do not embarrass me, but they must realise that unless they get the production they will not even get the 3 lb. of the present ration. I was going to point out that the troubles of the present are a clear indication of the troubles which may come upon us in the future, and unless—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The present order has nothing whatever to do with the future.

Mr. York: I will leave it, but I do make some suggestions to the Minister. It has been suggested that the question of riddling was one of some importance. I think it is and I am sorry that the Minister did not deal with it in the course of his reply. It may be that he is unaware that potatoes which go through the riddle are used mainly for stock feeding. A quantity may be used for consumption on the farm, but there must be in that quantity, put at half a million or one million tons, some proportion which the Minister could draw off from the farm, and I am surprised that even at this late hour of potato rationing, after an order has come into effect, the Government have never thought of what to do with this problem. The Government ought to be able to get advice from the Ministry of Agriculture as to what is the minimum amount of chats required on the farm and they ought to be able to make an estimate of what is the normal chat wastage away from human consumption.
In addition to chats, there is a considerable quantity kept on the farms for stock feeding. If the Minister takes no action, then the whole of that supply will go to stock feeding, but if an incentive were offered—and it would have to be a pretty big incentive—to draw that away from stock feeding, there would be a considerable potential increase in the amount of potatoes available. Let it


be remembered that there is also the question of guarding the potato supplies. There are difficulties about supplies in the future. In my constituency, in September, as soon as the potatoes were put into pies, thieving started on them. Potato pies up and down the country are unprotected and unless some steps are taken there is going to be wholesale thieving. I ask the Minister what steps he is taking to safeguard wholesale supplies if we get another period of severe frost. Under the present very narrow margin of stocks, it is going to be extremely easy for the wholesale markets to run out of supplies altogether, and if there is a period of frost it will be practically impossible to take the potatoes out of the pies. It is very necessary for the Minister to assure us in some way or other how the stock is to be maintained.
The last point I should like to bring to the Minister's notice is that he must make it clear to the country that if the people are to endure the great hardship which this order puts upon them, a similar situation will not arise next year. We have had so much mismanagement of affairs and so many crises in the past that we are getting a little nervous about almost every feature of our national life. Not only do we want the Minister of Food to get up in this House and say it, not only do we want a new Minister of Food, but we want the whole Government to make it clear, both to the farming community and to the consumers, that they are taking and have taken measures that will ensure that the same muddles and the same inefficiencies are not repeated.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: The Minister of Food tonight has made a most serious announcement on behalf of the Government. I do not wish by any rash words to bring party feeling into this matter, but I think anybody reading behind the Minister's announcement, which it is possible for us back benchers to do even without the knowledge which the Minister has, will realise that it is perfectly clear it will not be possible for the present ration of 3 lbs. and the consequential allowances defined in this order to be continued until the next crop of potatoes is available. The Minister very rightly and very properly

stated that he was working from time to time on estimates which, of course, get more and more accurate as time progresses. Therefore, the question for him to decide is "When can I make the first estimate on which I can place any reliance at all?" I believe that the real time for making that estimate was when, having regard to the fact that the national average was about 7 tons to the acre, he knew he had not got an adequate acreage ploughed.
The second question I wish to put to him is how long is this ration to endure? We are entitled to hear from the Government how long this present ration is going to last in terms of this crop. Is it only to last, for example, in terms of the 1947 crop, and the rationing not continue with the introduction of the new potatoes of 1948? It may be so, but if that is so, I ask the Minister to answer this question —how is it that it will be possible to ration the new crop in 1948, whereas he said that because of its non-keeping properties it would be impossible to ration the crop of 1947. Thirdly, I would just say this to the Minister—I believe that in the very difficult position in which we are we might be able, as the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) said, to reduce the amount of chats potatoes and use some of the smaller potatoes for seed. One thing that is essential at all costs is that the Minister must recognise that we must ensure seed for next year's harvest and for that we must do everything we can, and make whatever sacrifices—

Mr. Speaker: Next year's harvest has nothing to do with this order.

Mr. Butcher: I am much obliged to you, Sir. I will leave that point immediately, hoping I may follow the Minister on that matter on another occasion. I would say that we are in a very difficult position. The ration that has been imposed on the people is a smaller one than would have been necessary if more foresight had been shown earlier; and if the ration which the people are receiving now is smaller than that which I believe they will receive in February and March next year they will know who to blame for the mistakes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): rose in his place, and claimed to move, " That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Richard Adams were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Members being willing to act as Tellers or the Noes, Mr. Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.

Question,
That the Potatoes (Control of Supply) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 2402), dated 8th November, 1947, a copy of which was presented on 13th November, be annulled,
put accordingly, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC MEETINGS, HACKNEY

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

11.44 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: My constituency has achieved some unenviable notoriety lately because it happens to contain Ridley Road where parties have come from all parts of London to conduct their meetings, but it is because this question has national implications that I invite the attention of the House to it even at this late hour.
On 30th October I asked the Home Secretary whether he had seen reports that Sir Oswald Mosley had threatened to come to Hackney to hold meetings, and what he was going to do about it. The Home Secretary, in a Written Answer replied:
I have seen Press reports to this effect. I have no power to decide who shall or shall not be allowed to speak at a public meeting. It will be the duty of the police to preserve order and maintain the peace."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th Oct. 1947; Vol. 443, c. 122.]
I yield to no one in my admiration of the Home Secretary's desire to preserve the right of free speech. He holds truly to the famous dictum of Voltaire that however much we may disagree with a person we should fight to the death for that person's right to put his point of view. But I submit that in this particular case there are very special features, and in connection with the reply, I invite the attention of the House to the fact that the Home Secretary said that he has no power to decide who shall or shall not be allowed to speak at a public meeting.

It is a bit incomprehensible, and a bit worrying in a case like this, that the legal experts at the Home Office cannot advise the Home Secretary on how action should be taken. Yet when they wanted to stop leaders of the Left, they were ingenious enough.
It is within the recollection of the House that in 1932, when two leaders of the unemployed were going to address a meeting and the authorities wanted to stop them, the legal officers of the Home Office dug up a 14th century Act of Parliament, passed in the reign of Edward III, and on 30th December, 1932, the treasurer and secretary of the national unemployed workers movement appeared at Bow Street Police Court, and were ordered to enter into recognisances and find sureties for 12 months—in other words not to attend that particular meeting. Because they refused to enter into recognisances they went to prison for two months. They were Tom Mann and Wal Hannington. The magistrate, Sir Chartres Biron, in justifying the sentence, said that he, as a magistrate was sworn to preserve the peace. So am I, as a magistrate, and that is some justification for bringing this forward tonight. One of the correspondents of "The Times" said, in supporting this prosecution:
Great injury results if a crowd gets out of hand, especially to the spectators on the fringe of it. Prima facie it does not seem unreasonable to require of any citizen that he should undertake to refrain from action which is calculated to precipitate such a situation.
It is quite true the Labour Movement protested against using that Act in this way, but fortunately for me there is a more recent Act, the Public Order Act, and I am advised that under Section 5—it was laid down in the case Duncan v. Jones—it is the duty of the police to prevent any action likely to result from a breach of the peace by anyone, and that is the point I want to make on that part of the answer of the Home Secretary.
The other part of the answer says that it will be the duty of the police to preserve order and maintain the peace. I wonder whether the police can. I wonder whether the police can maintain order if Mosley comes to Hackney. In saying that I may be accused of incitement. I do not think that could be held for one


moment. It would be burying our heads in the sand to ignore what will happen if Mosley goes to Ridley Road. We have the recent example only a week ago of the Memorial Hall in the respectable City of London. We have the even more recent example of how the Conservative Party at Market Harborough refused to allow their hall for a meeting of this man. And Hackney is very different from either the City of London or Market Harborough. Hackney is a place where, when the husbands and sons were away fighting the German and Italian friends of Mosley, the women of Hackney were being severely bombed by the German and Italian friends of Mosley and Mosley personifies what they had to suffer during the war. Furthermore, Hackney is a borough with a very large Jewish population and we know that many of those Jews have relatives who had first hand experiences of Mosley's friends and methods, and Mosley epitomises to them all those things that they feel so deeply about.
As a result of this, we had a deputation from the borough council of Hackney, from a town's meeting, and similar resolutions have been passed by the neighbouring boroughs of Shoreditch, Stepney and Stoke Newington. But in spite of that, these Fascists are getting bolder every week. Up to now they have been masquerading under the title of the British League of ex-Service men. I say that is an insult to the ex-Service men of this country, an insult to the British Legion, an insult to the 10,000 Jewish ex-Service men who were addressed by representatives of all three parties only three weeks ago, an insult to the Union Jack that they fly on their platform. Now, having become bolder each week, they are becoming more and more like the prewar Fascists. Only last evening I listened to one of their speakers at Ridley Road pouring out the cheapest and nastiest anti-Semitic stuff. They are emboldened by the recent decision in the Morecambe case of Caunt, and one of their spokesmen is now able behind a barrier of police to boast that he has won the battle of Ridley Road.
I say that this must stop. Mosley must be laughing at us and at the fact that a British Government should provide the police to protect him and his friends in

this way, when he is using all the weapons of democracy in order to destroy democracy. I call upon the Under-Secretary, who apparently is to reply, to give us some hope that action will be taken by the authorities to stop this threatened meeting. Whatever the legal subtleties of the position are, common sense demands that we should not allow this thing to grow any further, for it is a thing that will surely destroy us if we are not careful, and if the Home Secretary still maintains that he has not sufficient power to stop Mosley attending this meeting, I say that he ought to seek further powers.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Goodrich: I intervene in this discussion to support my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd). We in Hackney, without the slightest doubt, are getting more than our share of disturbances. The residents of Hackney, irrespective of creed, are worrying themselves as to whether Mosley is to come to Hackney and create further disturbances. The latest position is that these Fascist people are getting very arrogant and have now reached the stage when they write more or less threatening letters to Members of Parliament to take certain measures. I would like to read this letter I have received:
Sir: Regarding the petition you and others put to Mr. Chuter Ede, Home Secretary, last Monday evening. Such as I can afford to laugh at such as you for what you do. All you seem to try to do is to twist British people around to your own liking.
The day will come, if you are not careful, when your alien masters will run you round to their liking. My eyes have been open now for years, and the British people are gradually waking up as to our enemies not outside Britain but within, and are joining movements that are 100 per cent. British. Also they are gradually turning to the greatest living Englishman, Sir Oswald Mosley, to lead them back to the days of sanity. I am an ex-Service man, first world war, Grand Fleet, and I beg to state where would such as you be today if it was not for the protection of the Royal Navy? Britain for the British, aliens last of all. Hail Mosley!
I would draw the attention of the House to the last sentence:
Mr. Chuter Ede has more brains than ever you will have.
I am glad to know that they appreciate that my right hon. Friend has more brains than I have. If I had more brains than he, perhaps I would be in his position.


I am not criticising my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary; I know the difficult task he has, but I am asking, in support of my hon. Friend, that he will consult further with the Law Officers of the Crown to see whether it is not possible to strengthen further the Public Order Act. My view is that the cases stated by my hon. Friend, while excellent in their way, could be increased by further cases brought before the courts in order to settle this matter, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will realise why the people of Hackney are pressing him so much. There is a necessity to strengthen the Public Order Act, and to stop these meetings and disturbances.
My hon. Friend has said the police are exercising every power they have to prevent a breach of the peace. That is true, but, unfortunately, the protection they are exercising is not so much to prevent a breach of the peace as to ensure the right to hold the meetings, which create further disturbances in the minds not only of those present, but also of those not present who get to hear of what has gone on. I would ask the Under-Secretary to take the message of this Debate to his right hon. Friend, and ask him if he will consult further with the Law Officers of the Crown to strengthen the Public Order Act.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I must express very great surprise that the Home Secretary has not felt it fit and proper to be here to answer this Debate. I cannot understand the reason that has kept him away on this occasion, but I do know that the right hon. Gentleman has written very laudatory words about Sir Oswald Mosley, and it may be that these words which, I hope he has occasion to regret now, are the reasons why he is not present to-night. I want to say that the people of Hackney, among whom I work every day, are really concerned about these meetings. They are really concerned about the advent of Sir Oswald Mosley, with all the paraphernalia of the totalitarian creed, and they feel that it is not right that this man should preen himself before the people resplendent with bodyguards in black shirts and coloured arm bands which are not consistent with our idea of public life in a democracy.
It may well be that the more sensible way of dealing with this situation would be to ignore this rather second-rate individual, and I feel that many of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and many of their supporters in Hackney and the East End of London—which I know well—are building up this mountebank once again. He has been very seriously deflated during the past five years, and we are witnessing the somewhat dismal spectacle of supporters of the Left Wing erecting him once more on a pedestal. It must be difficult to stand in Ridley Road and listen to the vileness of the utterances of the members of the Ex-Service Men's League. It would be much more in the interests of the Jewish community if they left this man alone, because I am convinced that if he is left to the obscurity he deserves, he will sink from notice. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That was said about Hitler."] That may have been said about Hitler, but I am not so foolish as to class Hitler with Mosley, or to class the mentality of the people of this country with the gullible mentality of the people of Germany.
I feel that the Home Secretary has a duty to deal with this issue. I feel that the interests of democracy in this country, and of public order, demand that some more action should be taken against Mosley than has been taken—[HON. MEMBERS: "And Communism."]—and Communism, as my hon friends say. That is a difficulty we are in—that the Communists are pursuing precisely the same-line as Mosley. I feel we should endeavour to impress on those who are so opposing him that the best means of preventing the regime which he is attempting to establish is to ignore him, because he deserves to be ignored. It is only by giving him fresh publicity that he will rally support and once more disgrace the British political scene.

12.3 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I am well aware that the strong views which have been expressed from both sides of the House represent the strong views and deep anxieties felt in the country on this matter. I can assure the House that the strength of the feeling is fully appreciated by my right hon. Friend. I have been called upon, from both sides of the House in


different terms, to do something more about this problem. The questions may be divided into two parts—firstly, "whether one can do something more with the existing powers, and, secondly, the question—hinted at by the last two speakers and which it would be out of Order to discuss—whether further powers should be taken by legislation. I do not think the House will expect me to deal in any detail with the question of new powers. I would only say that my right hon. Friend has authorised me to say that he has been, and is, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the Crown as to the possible lines of action, should it be considered necessary for any fresh powers to be taken.
I think the strong feeling there is about this subject sometimes leads people who are apt to criticise the police to forget just how difficult and delicate is the task of the police. As my right hon. Friend said in answer to the question mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd), the duty of the police is to preserve order and maintain peace, and the whole crux of this question is: What is the criterion which the police are to use in intervening or deciding not to intervene in public meetings—mostly political meetings, but not necessarily always political meetings, where there is reason to fear a threat to order or to the maintenance of peace?
I would narrow the problem a little by asking the House to agree to two things with me about this criterion which the police ought to apply. First, I think we can agree that it would not be proper to ask the police to distinguish between political opinions which are desirable and political opinions which are undesirable and to take action accordingly. That is certainly not a discretion that the police would be glad to be granted, and I cannot think anyone, on either side of the House, would wish to give it them. Secondly, I think we can agree we could not ask the police to take action in advance to prevent the holding of a meeting which was, in itself, in no way an infringement of the law merely because they had some reason to think there might be an attempt at a breach of the peace. If the police were to adopt that as the criterion it would put a premium on violence, and mean that anybody could be stopped from holding a meeting or making a speech by

any gang who made it known that they were going to make a row. I think there were some admirable movements, which started sometimes as small, sometimes as unpopular movements, which would have been nipped in the bud if that principle had been followed.
If the House will allow these propositions, I think we must fall back on what is the law, namely, that the police have the responsibility simply to prevent a breach of the peace, and to protect people who are going about their lawful occasions, and who wish to hold meetings or to make speeches in the perfectly normal way.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Are we, then, to understand that the Home Office is abandoning the proposition that it is the law of this country that it is unlawful to incite to race hatred and race discrimination?

Mr. Younger: No. I think I made it quite clear that it is the duty of the police to protect people who are engaging in their lawful occasions. What my hon. Friend has just referred to would be, of course, unlawful under the Common Law, I think, as well as under certain statutes, possibly. If the police were to abdicate the duty of protecting people holding prima facie lawful meetings, that would at once give rise to the growth of private armies organised to protect public speakers. We all know that that was beginning to happen with the growth of the Fascist movement before the war—a thing which the Public Order Act, 1936, was specifically aimed to prevent.
It was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney that there was a case in 1932 in which action was taken to compel a certain person to enter into recognisances to be—I do not know the exact phrase that was used—to be of good behaviour and to hold no more meetings; that he refused and went to prison. I would point out to my hon. Friend that, as he said, that was done under a very ancient Statute, the terms of which I have not with me. I think that what had to be proved under that Statute before action could be taken in the courts was that there was reason to believe the person was organising disorder or breaches of the peace.

Mr. Pritt: No.

Mr. Younger: I may be wrong about the exact phraseology of the Statute: I have not the text of it here. In any event, the point is that a decision has to be taken by the court, and, therefore, the action of the Home Secretary or the police in initiating action in the matter must be governed by the probability of their contention being upheld by a court of law. It is the standard of the court of law that upholds the law. There was another case mentioned, that of Duncan and Jones. I have not the judgment by me; but I think I am right in saying that that was not preventive action taken in advance of a meeting in the sense of prohibiting someone, but a case of taking action just before the meeting started, in the light of experience of previous similar meetings held just before, when breaches of the peace did in fact result. If such a situation were to arise in respect of a meeting or visit by Sir Oswald Mosley to the Hackney district, it might well be that some breach of the peace could be caused by these hypothetical circumstances, but I do not think that supports the contention of my hon. Friend, that even under existing powers the Home Secretary might possibly have the right to prohibit in advance the visit of Sir Oswald Mosley or anybody else in order to address a meeting.

Mr. H. Hynd: The hon. Gentleman says it is hypothetical. Has the Home Office any doubt whatever as to what will happen if Mosley comes to Hackney?

Mr. Younger: I do not think that is a thing on which I would like at the moment to commit myself definitely. I agree that what happened at visits of Mosley's colleagues to Ridley Road would encourage one to believe that if he himself went, there would be a considerable amount of trouble, and of course the police would have to take the necessary action, as they did, I understand, in the case of Duncan and Jones. Such action might be necessary to preserve the peace, but it was strictly correct to say, as my right hon. Friend did in answer to a Question, that he has not the power to prohibit anybody in advance from attempting to hold a meeting and to order the police to take any action until there is such evidence of an impending breach of peace as would be likely to satisfy a court before whom

it would have to come. To suggest action any earlier than that is a very difficult proposition.
Lastly, while, as I said at the outset, my right hon. Friend fully realises the anxiety which is felt, and is in consultation about the possibilities of further action, and while he would certainly maintain that a constant vigilance about the activities of any movements of this kind is necessary, yet we would be unduly flattering Sir Oswald Mosley if we thought his activity today and his alleged recovery of political importance since his unfortunate experiences during the war justified the Home Secretary in taking any precipitate or ill-advised action which might possibly hit the liberty not only of Sir Oswald Mosley but of other more deserving citizens.

12.13 a.m.

Mr. Pritt: I think we can all feel some sympathy with the able and sincere Under-Secretary of State in putting forward a series of arguments with which I cannot believe he has the faintest sympathy himself. The main thing which emerges is that there ought to be more powers, a point which cannot be discussed on the Adjournment; but it does also emerge quite clearly that there exist powers which should be exercised. This ancient Statute should be called upon to take Sir Oswald Mosley or some of these other people before the magistrate and bind them over. It may be a little distasteful to have to use it but you do get a bit smelly handling muck. The Statute has been used without hesitation in the past on more progressive elements and it should be used on the others. If you did not bring in more than one-tenth of the evidence we have got about the visits to Ridley Road, I am sure any magistrate would bind these people over without a moment's hesitation.
With regard to the possibility of using the Duncan and Jones powers, which are in effect that when people who seem quite harmless might cause a lot of trouble through other people resenting their meeting and opposing it, the reasonable and proper way is to close down the meeting. It does not much matter whether you close it down half an hour or half a day before. I want to object to the assumption made by the hon. Member that it is


a question of distinguishing between undesirable and desirable political opinions. What we want the police and everybody else to distinguish between is, on the one hand, the most abominable manifestation which has ever disgraced mankind and on the other—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Fourteen Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.